Preamble

The House met at a Quarter fast Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of John Edmondson Whittaker, Esquire, Member for the County of Lancaster (Heywood and Radcliffe Division), and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL

Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Housing Components (Ordnance Factories)

Colonel Erroll: asked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production whether he will publish a list of the Royal

Ordnance factories which will be engaged wholly or partly on the manufacture of housing components, together with details of the components to be made at each factory, and estimates of output.

The Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production (Mr. John Wilmot):: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) on 3rd December.

Surplus Motor Vehicles

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production if his attention has been called to the fact that a large number of motor cars are standing in the open and deteriorating at the Ministry of Supply storage depot at Chobham, Surrey; has any estimate been made of the loss incurred through depreciation of these motor cars; and is he satisfied that steps have been taken to eliminate such loss.

Mr. Wilmot: Of the motor cars now in the Ministry of Supply depot at Chobham, only seven are not military type open two-seaters. There is little or no civilian demand for these two-seaters, but we are adapting as fast as possible all that are needed for the training of Army drivers. It is not possible to assess the depreciation of these vehicles through standing in the open but there is no covered storage for them.

Mr. Touche: Have any of these cars recently been moved from this storage depot?

Mr. Wilmot: They are moved away as they are reconditioned, of course.

Lieutenant William Shepherd: How has the Minister ascertained that there is no demand for them?

Mr. Wilmot: The Ministry of Transport have not received any requests for permits to buy them.

Sir Ronald Ross: Will the Minister receive a request, if I make one to him, on behalf of an ex-Service man whose car was requisitioned and who cannot buy another one?

Mr. Wilmot: With the greatest pleasure.

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production why during November there were a large number of practically unused Morris and Buick motor cars parked in the open at the Ministry of Supply storage depot at Great Missenden, Bucks; when he hopes to be able to dispose of all these motor cars; and how many it is estimated are fit for immediate use.

Mr. Wilmot: During the last few weeks five Morris and seven Buick motor cars have been returned to us by the U.S. Army and taken into the depot at Great Missenden. They all need repair and those which the Ministry of War Transport do not require for the use of other Government Departments will be made available for civilian use as soon as the motor industry can recondition them.

U.N.R.R.A. (Motor Vehicles)

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production what is the present rate of delivery to U.N.R.R.A. of the lorries so badly needed for relief in the liberated countries.

Mr. Wilmot: U.N.R.R.A. has placed requirements for the supply from this country of 14,248 motor vehicles, of which 10,230 fall to be supplied by me from surplus Service stocks. Of these 10,230, 6,622 have already been supplied and deliveries to the docks are continuing at a steady rate of about 100 a day, which is as fast as U.N.R.R.A. is able to ship them.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that, according to the most recent information from a most reliable witness, I am informed that the chief difficulty in shifting the necessary food is absence of transport, and will he treat this matter as one of military urgency?

Mr. Wilmot: I can assure the hon. Member I realise to the full the tragic urgency of this matter. We have already sent nearly 7,000 vehicles, and they are going forward now at the rate of 100 a day, which is as many as can be shipped.

Motor Lorries (Spain)

Wing-Commander Cooper: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many motor lorries have recently been authorised for purchase and how many are to be lent by Britain to the Spanish Government; if he has figures of the number lent by the U.S.A.; and for what purpose these lorries are being sent to Spain.

Mr. Wilmot: I have been asked to reply. No vehicles have been lent or sold by the British Government to Spain and I have no information of any loan of vehicles by the U.S.A. I am informed by my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade that, since January, 1945, licences have been granted for the export of 40 commercial vehicles to Spain against normal commercial orders.

American Military Stores (Disposal)

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that on terminating their occupation of military sites in this country American units, in some instances, have destroyed and burned their valuable equipment; and whether he will take steps to secure such of this equipment as may be serviceable for use in this country.

Mr. Wilmot: I have been asked to reply. I was not aware of any such destruction and I am informed that a direct order was issued to United States troops prohibiting the destruction of property, personal or otherwise. The disposal in this country of United States military stores is under constant review in consultation with the United States authorities.

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when certain huts were being removed they were destroyed and some burned, and that, in some cases, furniture which was in the huts was also destroyed; and will the right hon. Gentleman take steps, if I bring these matters to his attention, to acquire such property for civilian use in this country?

Mr. Wilmot: Certainly, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman will send me particulars of the matters to which he refers, I will have the information conveyed to the proper quarter.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon Friend whether the answer that he gave about the instructions against the destruction of property apply equally to fixed or semi-fixed fixtures in American camps?

Mr. Wilmot: I understand that that was so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUPPLY AND AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION STAFFS

Lieutenant W. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production the total numbers employed in these Ministries on 1st May, 1945, and 1st December, 1945.

Mr. Wilmot: The numbers of non-industrial civilian staff employed on 1st April, 1945 —the nearest date to 1st May, 1945, for which figures are available —were 60,751 in the Ministry of Supply and 21,470 in the Ministry of Aircraft Production, making a total of 82,221 in the two Ministries. I regret that the comparable figures for 1st December, 1945, are not yet available.

Lieutenant Shepherd: Can the Minister give the figures for the nearest available date?

Mr. Wilmot: Yes, Sir. The nearest available date was 1st November, and I have answered a question giving those figures. The figures were 46,995 by the Ministry of Supply and 19,530 by the Ministry of Aircraft Production, making a total of 66,525.

Mr. Gammans: Will the Minister explain what he means by "non-industrial," and give the number of industrial workers employed?

Mr. Wilmot: I cannot do so without notice. Industrial workers are people who work in industrial occupations in the factories. Non-industrial workers are the others.

Lieutenant Shepherd: Does not the Minister agree that the drop in the total number of personnel employed is insufficient in view of the decline in the function of these Ministries?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT CHARTER COMPANIES (R.A.F. PLANES)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production whether aircraft charter companies whose aircraft were requisitioned at the beginning of the war are to be given preference in being allotted R.A.F. aircraft which are now for sale.

Mr. Wilmot: An invitation to open tender has been issued for the light aircraft now being disposed of. I regret, therefore, that it would not be possible to do as the hon. and gallant Member suggests.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Minister consider the problem of small operators who, at the beginning of the war, had perhaps one aircraft, which was taken over, and give them a chance to buy back similar aircraft that are now being disposed of?

Mr. Wilmot: The aircraft that were requisitioned were paid for at a very generous rate. It is open to those whose aircraft were requisitioned to put in tenders, but I will certainly consider the point made by the hon. and gallant Member in regard to future sales.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: Have all the tenders got to be put in by post?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Paper Control

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production if he will explain the circumstances in which the Control of Paper (No. 70) (Economy) Order, 1945; dated 10th November, was decided upon as necessary for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I have been asked to reply. Paper is essential for many supplies and services. An adequate supply must therefore be maintained and be used for the most advantageous purposes from the national point of view.

Sir J. Mellor: As the continuance of this control is depriving the public of much essential information, can the Minister say when he expects to be able to remove the control?

Sir S. Cripps: No, I cannot say at the present time.

Rubber Boots

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production if he will cause rubber boots for farm workers in Kent to be more rapidly available than is at present the case.

Sir S. Cripps: I have been asked to reply. I have no evidence of any delay recently in the supply of rubber boots to farm workers, but if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be pleased to look into it.

Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that I know a farm worker who required some rubber boots last January, that it took him four months to get the permit, and that he has not got the boots yet? Is there any chance of his getting them soon?

Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Gentleman will send me particulars of the case, I will have it looked into as promised.

Newsprint

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the limitation placed on provincial newspapers which are unable to in crease their size, thereby excluding re ports of all new activities and even revived old activities; and, in order that the public may be fully informed on matters of international, national and local importance, he will make increased supplies of newsprint available for such purpose.

Mr. Leslie: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can hold out any hope of increasing the supply of paper to local weekly newspapers who fulfil a useful purpose in providing news of local interest in their respective districts.

Sir S. Cripps: I am well aware of the public importance, on the grounds stated in these Questions, of making increased supplies of newsprint available to the Press generally as soon as may be. But I am afraid that, for the present, it is not possible to increase the allocations.

Mr. Freeman: Can the Minister give any indication when it is likely to be available, since it is undoubtedly a denial if a free Press?

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot do so at the present time. It depends partly upon what happens as regards dollar loans and other matters.

Price Regulation Committees

Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will instruct the local price regulation committees to give more than three days' notice before considering applications, in view of the fact that local chambers of commerce and other organisations concerned cannot properly prepare their cases in the short time allowed; and how much notice was given in cases 5148/129 at Hortus Corner, Hythe, and 5609/135 at 25, High Street, Hythe.

Sir S. Cripps: The practice of local licensing committees in this matter is not uniform. The committee for the South Eastern Region publish weekly notices of applications for licences. Local bodies wishing to make representations in any particular case are asked to give preliminary notice of their intention to do so within three days and to lodge representations within a further period of seven days. A longer period of notice would involve undue delay in reaching decisions with consequential hardship to applicants. The usual procedure was followed in the cases to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but no preliminary notice was received in respect of either of them.

Hotel Equipment

Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement regarding the steps he is taking to enable boarding houses and hotels in Defence Areas to be re-equipped and reopened for the holiday season in 1946.

Sir S. Cripps: I am taking all practicable steps to increase the production of the goods which hotels require for their re-equipment. These are, of course, the same goods as are most urgently needed by housewives.

Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: Can the Minister give some slight priority to these people?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that would not be welcomed by the housewives.

Utility Furniture

Lieutenant W. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now consider extending the variety of design permitted in utility furniture production.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. My Advisory Committee have been working for some time at a number of new designs. Some new models have already been put into production, and more will be available in the coming months.

Colonel Erroll: Will other types of timber be incorporated in the new designs?

Sir S. Cripps: We intend to use every type of timber we can that is suitable for the furniture.

Tobacco Prices

Mr. Thomas Macpherson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the resentment felt by pipe smokers at the recent advance in price, he will control the price of pipe tobacco.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. There has been no recent general advance in the price of pipe tobacco. The recent rise in prices only affects certain brands of pipe tobacco made by the Imperial Tobacco Company and is due to an increase in their working costs.

Requisitioned Property

Flying-Officer Bowden: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that his department are occupying a block of 12 flats at West Walk, Leicester, that could house 12 families and that alternative accommodation has been offered them at Princess Road, Leicester; and when these flats will be de-requisitoned.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. The alternative accommodation proposed is not at Princess Road, Leicester, but consists of old houses which it will take some time to render fit for occupation. When they are ready, the flats at West Walk will be evacuated by my Department.

German Timber

Wing-Commander Cooper: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by the Commission sent to survey the available timber in Germany obtainable as part of reparations; will the timber be suitable

for housing; and when and at what rate will supplies be delivered to this country.

Sir S. Cripps: The mission has reported and steps are being taken to organise export from Germany, but as yet I am not able to give estimates as to quantities. Some of the timber will certainly be suitable for housing.

Cotton Industry

Colonel Erroll: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the working party for the cotton industry will be instructed to study and comment on the Evershed Commission Report on the Cotton Spinning Industry.

Sir S. Cripps: The report of the Evershed Commission will, of course, be of great interest to the working party, who will no doubt study it closely. As I stated to the House, however, on 15th October, I have made it clear to the chairmen of working parties that matter? concerning the relations between employers and employees, which are dealt with by employers' federations and trade unions, should be considered outside their scope.

Colonel Erroll: Will the working party be able to make a full and adequate report without taking into full consideration and incorporationg part of the Ever-shed Report into their own report?

Sir S. Cripps: I should imagine so, but, of course, they can refer to it if they wish.

Colonel Erroll: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now state his policy for the importation of raw cotton.

Sir S. Cripps: This matter is still under consideration.

Colonel Erroll: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say if the future of the cotton futures market is also under consideration?

Sir S. Cripps: It is.

Linen Thread

Sir G. Fox: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the shortage of household linen and the difficulty of replacement, he will encourage the manufacture and distribution of real linen thread suitable for repairing household linen.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. There is already an allocation of flax for the manufacture of linen thread, and I hope that next year larger supplies of thread will be available for civilian use.

Rayon (Export Licences)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that American buyers of luxury rayon materials are at present in Britain anxious to buy British materials; and will he take prompt steps to enable manufacturers to obtain export licences.

Sir S. Cripps: I am glad to say that production has been improving, and I hope that it will shortly be possible to relax the export restrictions. In the meantime there is nothing to prevent exporters from accepting provisional orders.

Colonel Hutchison: Does the right hon and learned Gentleman know that, in one case at least, these goods were processed some time ago specially for America, that the firm in question is unable to get export licences, and that the American buyers are here in this country at the moment and will shortly have to go away?

Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. and gallant Member will send me particulars of that case, I will look into it.

Trade Calendars

Mr. John Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade if trade calendars can now be sent to foreign countries without prior payment.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir.

Mr. J. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider removing the S.R. & O. which makes it obligatory for a charge to be made when sending out trade calendars, in view of the fact that to comply with this order firms are obliged to write to every customer inquiring if they would like a calendar, involving expenditure and wastage on stamps, envelopes, etc., at a total approximate cost of 6d.

Sir S. Cripps: Since 19th November the gratuitous distribution of trade calendars and other advertising circulars has been permitted up to 20 per cen. of the weight so distributed before the war or 1 cwt. whichever is the greater. Moreover, it is

no longer necessary to ask for payment in advance in respect of a circular which may not be gratuitously distributed.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether I can have back the penny stamp I paid down for a trade diary?

Sir S. Cripps: My hon. Friend had better ask the person to whom he sent it.

Civil Defence Surplus Goods

Lieutenant William Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade when it is intended to dispose of the large stocks of C.D. equipment and clothing now lying at various dumps.

Sir S. Cripps: Civil Defence equipment and clothing which is the Government's property is being steadily cleared, but I am considering what steps can be taken to speed up the disposal.

Box Boards (Importation)

Mr. J. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he is permitting the importation of manufactured box boards when the English sawmilling and box making industry is not fully occupied owing to the cessation of contracts from Government purchasing departments.

Sir S. Cripps: Adequate supplies of the timber required by certain branches of the box making industry are not at present available, but some imports of manufactured box boards can be obtained and thus increase the total supplies available.

Women's Wear (Style Restrictions)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the President of the Board of Trade why a furrier, who has sold a fur collar, is forbidden by Statutory Order from sewing it on the customer's cloth coat.

Sir S. Cripps: The prohibition of fur trimmings on women's coats was introduced in order to secure the most economical use of labour and material. Discussions are now proceeding with the trade interests concerned with a view to settling a convenient date early next year for the removal of this and other style restrictions on women's wear.

Sir J. Mellor: How is it an economy of labour if someone other than the furrier is permitted to sew the fur collar on the customer's coat?

Sir S. Cripps: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better ask my predecessor who put this Order into operation.

Children's Footwear

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the letter sent to him from an orthopaedic surgeon drawing attention to the effect upon children's health of the poor quality of children's shoes now being sold in the Cheltenham area; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Sir S. Cripps: I regret that I cannot identify the letter referred to by the hon. Member; but if he will give me further details, I will look into the matter.

Mr. Lipson: Is the Minister aware that I sent that letter to him a week ago, and can he give an undertaking that the quality will be improved in view of the fact that it has a serious effect on their health?

Sir S. Cripps: The quality of children's shoes is, on the average, not inferior to what it was prewar.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH CITIZENS (UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT)

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the appeal signed by Members of both Houses of Parliament, distinguished officers in the Fighting Services and others prominent in public life, on behalf of Irishmen who fought in the war or who were engaged in war work in Great Britain, for relief from the hardship which will be imposed on such persons in the event of their return to Eire through the sacrifice of unemployment benefits to which they are entitled on demobilisation or termination of service; and what action he proposes to take as a measure of justice in the circumstances.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): This matter is still under consideration but it is hoped to reach a decision at a fairly early date.

Sir P. Hannon: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the immense services rendered by these Irishmen in the war and in the production of munitions in this country, and take steps

to protect them from the disability under which they are labouring in returning to Eire?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I will do my best. The hon. Member will realise that we have to consult the Government of Northern Ireland, the Dominions and the Government of Eire, and it takes a little time to get it all fixed up; but I can assure the hon. Member that we are pursuing this question and we intend to reach a settlement as soon as we can, although I am afraid it will take some time.

Mr. Gallacher: Is this not a good opportunity for discussing this matter and other important matters with the Leader of the Irish Government?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Class B Releases

Mr. Anthony Nutting: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many applications for the release of agricultural workers under Class B have been received by the Leicester W.A.E.C.; how many such applications have been supported and forwarded to his Department by the Committee; in how many cases has his Department recommended release; and how many releases have actually been obtained.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): One hundred and nine applications for Class B release under the individual specialist scheme of persons formerly engaged in agriculture have been received by the Leicestershire War Agricultural Executive Committee. Of this number 18 were supported by the Committee and forwarded to my Department which recommended release in five cases. Release has been approved in three cases; one application was rejected by the appropriate authority and the decision in the remaining case is awaited.

Mr. Nutting: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the new statement regarding the widening of the scope of block releases which he sent in a recent letter will involve reconsideration of cases which have been previously rejected either by his Ministry or by Service Departments?

Mr. Williams: The statement made by my right hon. Friend will involve block releases; releases will no longer be confined exclusively to specialists.

Mr. Nutting: Will it involve reconsideration of cases previously refused?

Smallholdings

Mr. Gooch: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made in consultations between his Department and the County Councils' Association on the subject of smallholdings policy; and if he is now in a position to authorise county councils to proceed to supply the great demand for smallholdings in many counties by ex-Servicemen and others.

Mr. T. Williams: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye) on 15th October last.

Mr. Stubbs: Will my right hon. Friend consider that the men who have been fighting for their country ought to have a piece of land to which to come home, and on which they may desire to earn their own living?

Mr. Williams: Certainly, Sir, but I would not recommend any ex-Service or other man to enter upon a smallholding without having acquired some knowledge of the undertaking.

Mr. Butcher: Is the Minister aware that men with qualifications, experience and capital are eager to enter a smallholding and that his Ministry does nothing to help?

Mr. Williams: I am equally satisfied that there is a great demand for houses in this country, too.

Resettlement Grants

Major Bruce: asked the Minister of Agriculture when the scheme for resettlement grants, announced by the Minister of Labour to the House of Commons on 15th February last, is to be extended for the benefit of those wishing to resettle in agriculture.

Mr. T. Williams: This month, I hope.

Council of Agriculture

Mr. Gooch: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will alter the constitution of the Council of Agriculture for England so as to allow for the representation of

industrial interests and thus strengthen the link between industry and agriculture.

Mr. T. Williams: The Council of Agriculture for England was set up to assist my Department in executing its powers and duties and there is accordingly no statutory provision for the representation of non-agricultural interests on the Council. My hon. Friend's suggestion would necessitate amending legislation, which would not, in my view, be justified on this account.

Farm Buildings (Government Proposals)

Mr. T. Macpherson: asked the Minister of Agriculture when the Report of the Farm Buildings Committee is to be published; and what action he proposes to take on the recommendations contained in the Report.

Mr. T. Williams: The Farm Buildings Committee appointed by my predecessor in November, 1942, to consider and make recommendations regarding the lay-out, design and construction of farm buildings after the war, reported to him in March of this year. The report is to be published tomorrow. I am circulating in the Official Report a statement of the action I propose to take on its recommendations.

Following is the Statement:

The recommendations of the report of the Farm Buildings Committee provide a sound basis for developing the intentions announced in the Government's recent statement on agricultural policy that agricultural land should not only be properly farmed but also properly managed and equipped. An extensive programme of new construction on farms cannot be contemplated for the next two or three years. New buildings there will have to be, if full production is to be secured; and there are substantial arrears of repairs and maintenance to be overtaken. But for some little time, the quantity of building labour and materials that can he spared from the housing programme will be small in relation to needs.

I propose, therefore, that my Department shall, on the lines indicated in the Report, explore to the full the use of substitute materials and simplified methods of construction. They will be assisted in this by the findings of a Mission on Farm Buildings appointed by

my predecessor and his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland which has recently returned from America and whose report is also being made available to the Press tomorrow. The erection of farm buildings is subject to licensing by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, and plans for new buildings in England and Wales are referred to the Ministry of Agriculture for examination. It is intended that this examination shall be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Farm Buildings Report so as to ensure the fullest productive use of the available supplies of labour and materials. In the meantime, my Department will press on with the work of investigation on the recommendations made by the committee, so that when development is possible on a large scale, it will take place on sound lines. It is proposed to include advice on farm buildings within the scope of the National Advisory Service. I am, in the first place, referring the report to the Agricultural Improvement Council, with a request that they should consider its recommendations and should set out a programme of investigations to be put in hand forthwith.

Class B Releases

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will now issue instructions to county W.A.E.C.s to forward all applications for Class B releases to agriculture which they have received and rejected since VE-Day without requiring applicants to re-apply.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. The new arrangements for the release of agricultural workers will be conducted under a block release system and individual applications are not necessary. I am sending to the hon. Member a statement explaining the arrangements for the release of agricultural workers under the Class B block release scheme.

Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: Can the Minister say whether the arrangements which he has announced apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales?

Mr. Williams: Certainly, Sir.

Sir G. Fox: Will the Minister publish it in Hansard?

Sir R. Ross: Does Northern Ireland get its proper share in proportion to its size?

Mr. Williams: I presume so.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ernest Davies.

Sir G. Fox: May we be told whether it can be published in Hansard?

Mr. Speaker: I have called the next Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE

Newfoundland (Government Employees)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Undersecretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will state the total number of Government employees in Newfoundland; the approximate percentage belonging to trade unions; and the numbers employed in the most important services.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Parker): As the answer includes a number of figures, I will, with the Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the answer:

At the 30th November of this year the number of employees engaged in Government Departments on an annual and seasonal basis was 2,673 and 1,399 respectively. In addition, the Newfoundland Railway, which is Government owned, employed 3,070 permanent and 562 seasonal employees. Apart from the above categories there were in service 379 members of the Police and Fire Departments; 81 Rangers; 878 persons working in Government hospitals and similar institutions; 163 employees at the Government operated hotel; and 2,246 teachers in schools and colleges paid from Government funds. Inclusive of other small groups there were a total of 9,588 persons employed on an annual basis and 1,961 on a seasonal basis, making 11,549 in all.

Of the 2,673 members of Government Departments referred to above, 1,264 are enrolled in the Civil Service Association; some 1,150 teachers are members of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association, whilst 90 per cent and 95 per cent. respectively of all railway and hotel employees eligible for membership belong to their respective trade unions.

The numbers of staff permanently employed in the larger Government Departments are as follows:

Department of Customs
222


Department of Posts and Telegraphs
655


Department of Natural Resources
173


Department of Public Works
349


Department of Public Health and Welfare
129

Emigration

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what progress is being made to wards emigration schemes from this country to each of the Dominions

Mr. Parker: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Southend (Mr. Channon) on 19th November, to which I have nothing to add.

Colonel Hutchison: Will the Minister assure the House that, in these matters, it is not a question of a shortage of shipping which has precluded the immediate taking up of these schemes?

Mr. Parker: So far as migration is concerned, we are very anxious to have agreement with the Dominions, and it depends on when the Dominions can receive people as to what arrangements will be made.

Railways (State Management)

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Under-secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if in view of the contemplated acquisition of the railways of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by the State, he will inquire of the Governments of Canada and Australia as to the results of the State management of railways in these Dominions previous to the outbreak of war and lay the replies before the House.

Mr. Parker: Detailed information as to the working of Government-owned railways in the Dominions is contained in official publications issued by the respective Governments, and my Noble Friend sees no reason for any special inquiry.

Sir P. Hannon: Would not the Undersecretary think it desirable, in view of the statement made with regard to the nationalisation of transport in this country, that further inquiries should be made into the circumstances under which these projects were a complete failure?

Mr. Parker: I cannot accept the view that they were a complete failure. The

hon. Member will find that most of the Dominions have very successfully operated Government railway undertakings.

Mr. Bossom: May I suggest that the Minister should put the whole of these Reports in the Library so that we can have a look at them?

Mr. Parker: If there is any demand for that, we will be pleased to consider it.

Captain Marsden: Will the Minister simultaneously study the services and financial results of those railways run by private enterprise?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Army Officers (Release)

Brigadier Low: asked the Under-secretary of State for India why officer Groups 21 to 24 of the Indian Army have had their release dates deferred.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Group 21 of the Indian Army had been called forward by the Government of India and was either in transit camp or en route thereto at the time it was decided in October that the release programme for officers would have to be revised. This group proceeded by sea to the United Kingdom during November for release. In regard to Groups 22 to 24, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Bewdley (Major Conant) on 12th November.

Elections

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Under-secretary of State for India if he is aware that in the amending of electoral rolls in Orissa, the factory owners are alone to supply the names of eligible factory workers; and if he will take other steps to secure the compilation of a true register.

Mr. A. Henderson: As my hon. Friend will be aware, one seat out of a total of 60 in the Orissa Legislative Assembly is reserved for a representative of Labour. In connection with the preparation of the electoral roll for this Labour constituency only, the electoral rules provide that the registering authority shall call upon factory or mine managers to supply the names of eligible workers employed in the factory or mine. In addition the elections officer


is required to call upon every recognised trade union operating in the Province to supply a similar list of its members and officials who are qualified to be included in the roll. I have not received any information indicating that a true register is not being compiled.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that there is very strong complaint about this matter of selecting representatives from the factories, and would it not be better to deal through the recognised trade union officials, or to get the shop stewards to deal with the matter instead of the managers?

Mr. Henderson: I have already said that I have not received any complaints, and I refer the hon. Member to the fact that, in my answer, I said that we do utilise the activities of trade union officials.

Mr. Gallacher: But is the Minister aware that, according to cables received here, it is the managers who select the representatives, and that that is a very undesirable state of affairs?

Mr. Henderson: Nevertheless, it is the law.

Mr. Gallacher: But cannot we change the law?

Mr. Mikardo: Can the Minister tell us what proportion of the names included in the trade union list does not appear on the list compiled by the factory managers?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-secretary of State for India what are the arrangements for allowing the different parties in India to broadcast their policies during the elections.

Mr. A. Henderson: No arrangements have been made to allow the different parties in India to broadcast their policies during the elections.

Mr. Sorensen: Why is this, seeing that this country benefited by the broadcasts made in this country?

Mr. Henderson: I am informed by the Government of India that an attempt to grant equal facilities to all parties in India to broadcast their full policies would be attended with great difficulties.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is it not a fact that not more than one family in 90 has

a wireless set in India, so who on earth would listen to it if we did broadcast?

Mr. Sorensen: Does my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that broadcasting even to the 30,000,000 electors in India would be of great value, and as we overcame the difficulty in regard to small parties in this country, could it not be done over there?

Mr. Henderson: I do not think the setup of political parties in India is quite as easy a matter as it is in this country.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Under-secretary of State for India if he is aware that in the Punjab the announcement regarding the revision of electoral rolls was made in the Press on 29th September, 1945; that the names of the offices where applications were to be made was announced in Lahore on 3rd October, 1945; that such announcement was not made outside Lahore until a later date; that the announcement was by news-item only and not by beat of drums or poster; and that the last date for applications for names to be placed on the register was fixed for 9th October, 1945; whether he is satisfied that the register compiled in these circumstances is a correct register of those entitled to vote; and what steps he will take to cause a further register to be properly compiled in the Punjab before the forthcoming elections.

Mr. A. Henderson: I have no information on the points raised by the hon. Member and the Governor of the Punjab is being asked for a report. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as this report is available.

Mr. Gallacher: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, as many of these electors are illiterate, a news-item is of no value so far as providing information about the election is concerned, and was there any arrangement of any kind made to get a Parliamentary delegation from Yugoslavia to visit India to see that the election is conducted fairly?

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Under-secretary of State for India if he is aware that in Sind Province every application for inclusion on the electoral register has to pass through a judicial inquiry by a subordinate judge for final disposal; and whether this is compatible with the conduct of free elections.

Mr. A. Henderson: Applications for inclusion on the Sind electoral register do not have to pass through a judicial inquiry by a subordinate judge for final disposal as suggested in my hon. Friend's Question. It is only at a later stage that any claims or objections that might be submitted have to be disposed of by the revising authorities, who are subordinate judges, except in Karachi, where the revising authority is the judge of the Small Causes Court.

Mr. Gallacher: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in this matter also there have been many serious protests; and in view of the fact that under Tory rule the Indians were more accustomed to bullets than to ballots, will he make it as easy as possible to enable people to ballot?

Mr. Henderson: If my hon. Friend will give me any particulars as to when the law has not been carried out, I will certainly look into them.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Is the hon. Gentle man who put that supplementary question aware that prominent Members on this side of the House were members of the Indian Franchise Committee which framed the franchise upon which—

Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to ask a question of the hon. Gentleman across the Floor of the House?

Mr. Gallacher: I do not mind if I can answer it.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is aware that in the Punjab illiterate voters have to state, in the presence of the election officer and the agents of all the candidates, for whom they wish to vote; and whether any steps will be taken to obviate this violation of the principle of secret ballot.

Mr. A. Henderson: It is not the case that illiterate voters in the Punjab are compelled to act in the manner suggested. The relevant Punjab Electoral rule provides that, if any elector is, by reason of illiteracy or infirmity, unable to vote in the ordinary way, the presiding officer shall, at his request, and in the view of any polling agents representing the candidates who are present, make a cross on the ballot paper according to the direction of the elector and shall cause the

ballot paper so marked to be placed in the ballot box.

Mr. Piratin: I am not quite clear whether I heard the beginning of that answer, in view of the talk which is going on here, but I would ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he agrees that the state of affairs as outlined in my Question exists, and is authorised to exist by the law to which he referred earlier?

Mr. Henderson: No. Sir, on the contrary, I said just the opposite. I said it is not the case that illiterate voters in the Punjab are compelled to act in the manner suggested. I then quoted the rule, but if my hon. Friend has any information showing that the rule is not being observed, I will look into it.

Major Wyatt: But is it not a fact that the illiterate voter in the Punjab has to indicate on the paper where his X is to be placed, and the names of the candidates are visible to the agents and to the presiding officer, so, therefore, substantially the facts suggested in the Question are accurate?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. Unless the elector makes the request, the presiding officer does not take the action suggested.

Major Wyatt: Does that mean that he does not vote unless he makes a request?

Mr. Henderson: That is for the electors.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is aware that in the recent provision of the electoral rolls in the Punjab, a 12-anna revenue stamp was required to be affixed to each application for registration; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the limited time available to bring the electoral rolls up to date for the forthcoming elections, the Governor of the Punjab made rules under which the rolls are levised on the basis of applications from the individuals affected. A fee of 12 annas was imposed under these rules to discourage frivolous applications, which could not have been dealt with in the time available. No action could now be taken by the Governor to change this system as the elections are due to begin soon and must be completed by the end of February.

Mr. Piratin: Would my hon. and learned Friend say whether that particular Regulation made by the Governor is also allowed to him by the rule to which my hon. and learned Friend referred earlier, and whether he agrees with it?

Mr. Henderson: I am not concerned to express my agreement; I am here to indicate the facts in reply to my hon. Friend's Question. All I can say is that the rule to which he refers was made by the Governor in his own judgment, and is therefore well within his constitutional powers.

Mr. Sorensen: Is there any other Province where the same principle operates?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Then does it not seem to be rather an anomalous position, to which the attention of the Viceroy should be drawn?

Mr. Henderson: I can draw the attention of the Governor to this, but I am afraid it is now too late for him to do anything about it.

Sir P. Hannon: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that this House is not responsible for everything which the Governors in India do; they are responsible on their own account for their actions.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is aware of the fact that the election campaign amongst the workers of Jamshedpur is seriously handicapped by the fact that since 1940 no less than 30 of their leaders have been expelled from Jamshedpur, and will he take steps to advise the Bihar Provincial Government that these expulsion orders arc incompatible with the holding of free elections.

Mr. A. Henderson: I have no information on this matter but am making inquiries. I will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

Sir P. Hannon: May I ask the Under-secretary of State for India if he has any information as to the time which the gentlemen who arc asking these Questions have been in India?

Major Wyatt: Is the Under-Secretary aware that I was in India until last May, and that I, also, have been asking Questions?

Mr. Piratin: Is the Under-Secretary aware, following the supplementary question raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that I am as much entitled to speak about India as he is entitled to speak about the working-class? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the several replies given to myself and to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) to the series of Questions which we have been asking, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment on an early occasion.

Food Situation

Mr. Bossom: asked the Under-secretary of State for India whether, as the monsoons this year have been below the average, he can give an assurance that both he and his advisers in India are satisfied about the food situation, especially in Bengal, and have no cause for apprehension of famine.

Mr. A. Henderson: The food situation in India will continue to require constant watching but my Noble Friend, who is in continuous touch with the Government of India on this subject, sees no cause for apprehension of famine whether in Bengal or elsewhere in India.

Mr. Bossom: It is not a fact that, in places where in the past this situation has prevailed, there have been complaints of no special steps being taken to avoid it, and are any special steps being taken to avoid it in future?

Mr. Henderson: If the hon. Member would care to put down a Question next week, I will endeavour to make a full statement on this subject.

Major Wyatt: May I ask the Minister whether, in view of the fact that a large part of the trouble in the Bengal famine was due to the appalling publicity on the part of the Government of Bengal, what steps they are taking now to make quite sure that everybody in Bengal knows what the situation is and whether there is likely to be a shortage or not?

Mr. Henderson: I have just said that, if my hon. Friend puts down a Question next week, I will endeavour to make a full statement.

Indian Troops (Amenities and Travel)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-secretary of State for India whether travelling and recreation facilities for


Indian troops have now been improved; and what representations respecting these have reached him in recent months.

Mr. A. Henderson: My Noble Friend has not received any representations on these matters in recent months, but I can assure my hon. Friend that there has been steady improvement in the provision of amenities for Indian troops and in the conditions of railway travel.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the Minister whether he is now satisfied that conditions in regard to relaxation and travelling for British and Indian troops respectively are approximately equal?

Mr. Henderson: I would not be prepared to say that today they are approximately equal, but I can say that it is the declared purpose of the authorities in India that amenities available to Indian troops shall reach a standard fully equivalent to that for British troops.

Aircraft Facilities (Civilians)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-secretary of State for India what are the categories of persons other than military personnel for whom aircraft facilities are granted between Britain and India; and approximately how many civilians have arrived from, and departed to, India by aircraft and by other means respectively.

Mr. A. Henderson: I am asking the Government of India to let me have particulars of the numbers of civilians who have left India for the United Kingdom by air and sea respectively during the last 12 months, and on receipt of their reply I will communicate with my hon. Friend. The other points raised in the Question come within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Ministry of War Transport.

Mr. Sorensen: Can we take it, mean-while, that there are facilities for persons to travel from India to this country and vice versa?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Driberg: Before large numbers of civilians are brought back from India by air, will my hon. and learned Friend consider sending a few aircraft to Rangoon to bring back some of the troops now overdue for Python repatriation?

Mr. Henderson: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA

Electoral Rolls

Mr. Driberg: asked the Under-secretary for State for Burma what progress has been made in the preparation of electoral rolls and the other preliminaries to a general election in Burma.

The Under-Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The preparation of the electoral rolls cannot be undertaken until the basis of the franchise has been settled. This is under urgent examination in Burma and proposals will in due course be laid before this House.

Mr. Driberg: Since my hon. and learned Friend has now indicated definitely that Burma is to have self-government within the next four-and-a-half years, will he do all he can to expedite this matter, so that Burmese politicians can have as much experience as possible of representative government?

Mr. Henderson: I can assure my hon. Friend that this is, in fact, being treated as an urgent matter.

Executive Council (Vacancies)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Under Secretary of State for Burma if he will make a statement on the Governor of Burma's intentions in regard to the five vacancies on the Executive Council.

Mr. A. Henderson: I am not in a position to make any statement on this matter at the moment. My hon. Friend will no doubt have seen in the Press that the Governor emphasised in a recent speech at Mandalay that as regards the participation of the anti-Fascist People's Independence League in the Executive Council "the door is still open."

Mr. Driberg: Could my hon. and learned Friend suggest that the five vacancies on the Council might now be offered to the League, in an attempt to heal the apparent slight breach?

Mr. Henderson: I think that we must leave it to the Governor to take the best steps he thinks necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (U.N.R.R.A. HELP)

Mr. P. Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Government programme of help from


U.N.R.R.A. has been arranged for Austria; and, if not, will he consider the desirability of putting a temporary emergency programme into operation forthwith in view of the position threatening this country during the coming winter.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. McNeil): I understand that U.N.R.R.A. has not yet received a definite invitation from the Allied Council in Austria to undertake relief and rehabilitation operations in Austria. As a first step, however, the Allied Council recently invited U.N.R.R.A. to send a technical fact-finding mission to Austria. This mission is still actively exploring the problem in consultation with the Allied authorities in that country. The delay in the issue of an invitation and in the drawing up of a programme by U.N.R.R.A. has been partly due to uncertainty which still exists as to the future availability of U.N.R.R.A.'s resources. I know that the administration is nevertheless fully alive to the urgency of the need, and as soon as the invitation has been issued and the necessary funds are known to be available no time will be lost in beginning operations.

Mr. Freeman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is one country, if not the only country in Europe, which is not receiving direct help from U.N.R.R.A., and would not an emergency plan for this country put into operation now help there more than in any other country?

Mr. McNeil: I am sorry, but the two conditions to which I have drawn the hon. Member's attention would prevent that taking place, but I promise him that as quickly as they are overcome we will begin operations in Austria.

Mr. Warbey: Will the Foreign Secretary instruct the British representative on the Allied Commission for Austria to urge that an official invitation shall be given to U.N.R.R.A. to come into Austria and operate there?

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend will, of course, consider that, but that is only one of the two qualifications which must be fulfilled.

Mrs. Middleton: Is the Under-Secretary taking into account the fact-finding mission, so that we may know what they have found, in view of it being pretty

well known all over Europe that there is a considerable degree of hunger, if not actually starvation, in Austria at the present time?

Mr. McNeil: The conclusions of the fact-finding mission will be very quickly available.

Mr. Stokes: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in view of the fact that it is well known in responsible quarters that this invitation is going to be issued, and the urgency of the matter, he will do all he can to remove whatever obstruction there is in the way of the invitation being issued?

Mr. McNeil: I need not point out to my hon. Friend that the second qualification relates to finance.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the position in Austria has been seriously aggravated by the size of the Occupation Forces, and, pending this agreement, cannot the situation be relieved by a reduction of the number of the Occupation Forces? Is there any hope of that?

Mr. McNeil: That is plainly quite another question, which I am sure my hon. Friend would not expect me to answer without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (CAPTURED DOCUMENTS)

Lieutenant Herbert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish a White Paper summarising the evidence discovered in the German Foreign Office and in other captured documents revealing the names and activities of British subjects associated with the Nazi movement prior to the outbreak of war.

Mr. McNeil: The small staff charged with examining the large quantities of German documents has so far been concentrated in producing evidence for the Nuremberg trials. My right hon. Friend will, however, consider what use might be made of such documents as those referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend when a full examination has been made of all documents of this nature available.

Lieutenant Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been considerable Press publicity given in this country


to these discoveries, and may it not be in the interests of the sections of society who may presumed to be involved that as soon as possible evidence should be published?

Mr. McNeil: My attention has, of course, been drawn to the Press reports, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not expect us to act upon them, and he need not be at all anxious that any particular part of society will be protected if their guilt is established.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALBANIA (GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION)

Mr. Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement in regard to the recognition by His Majesty's Government of the present Government in Albania.

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government informed the Albanian administration on 10th November that they would be prepared to recognise it as the Provisional Government of Albania, subject to assurances being given that free elections would be held at an early date. It was also made clear that recognition was in no way to prejudice the eventual separate consideration of other questions of an international character which might affect Albania. The necessary assurances were given by the Albanian Government, and accordingly on 24th November His Majesty's Government informed the Albanian administration that they were now prepared to recognise it as the Provisional Government of Albania, and to proceed with the exchange of diplomatic representatives.

Captain Francis Noel-Baker: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, among the other international considerations he mentioned, attention is being given to the question of the Greek-Albanian frontier?

Mr. McNeil: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CONFERENCE, QUEBEC

Mr. Gooch: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is the intention of the Government to issue a White

Paper on the Food and Agriculture Organisation Conference at Quebec; and if he intends to ask the House to confirm the recommendations of the conference.

Mr. McNeil: A White Paper containing a summary of the reports presented to the Food and Agriculture Conference at Quebec will in due course be laid. As regards the second part of the Question, I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend has in mind, but if he is referring to time for Debate this is, of course, a matter for the Leader of the House.

Mr. Gooch: Will the House be given an opportunity of debating the recommendations of the Conference, in view of the importance of this organisation in the framework of the United Nations Organisation?

Mr. McNeil: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question to the Leader of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Doctors' Motor-Cars (Purchase Licences)

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of War Transport if he is aware of the delay experienced by doctors in obtaining new motor-cars essential for their work; how many such applications are still unsatisfied; and the average length of time between the receipt of an application by his Department and the delivery of the motor car.

The Minister of War Transport (Mr. Barnes): The delay referred to is due to the comparatively small number of new cars so far produced. My Department has issued licences at a rate to cover anticipated production, and high priority has been given to doctors. On a rough estimate, I have granted some 3,500 licences to doctors out of the total of 14,000 licences granted, and some 500 applications from doctors are outstanding. I am unable to give the average length of time referred to in the last part of the Question.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the Minister aware that the whole procedure wants speeding up, and that we have been waiting for doctors in Evesham for a very long time?

Members of Parliament (Late Sittings)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of War Transport if he will run late omnibuses to main suburbs to transport as near home as possible Members of this House after late Sittings, in particular, omnibus No. 24 to Hampstead, to which the last omnibus now passes through Whitehall at 9.40 p.m.; and if he will provide some other form of transport after late Sittings of this House.

Mr. Barnes: Omnibus Route No. 24 is practically parallel to the Northern Line Underground Railway on which the last train leaves the Strand at 12.14 a.m. for Belsize Park, Hampstead and Edgware. The London Passenger Transport Board hope to provide later omnibus services up to 11.30 p.m. from the Central Area, beginning with some sections in February and completing in April. The difficulty of providing special transport facilities after late Sittings will be appreciated. Following the Question of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) last month I have arranged to have posted in the House a list of private hire car firms in the Westminster area and their telephone numbers.

Mr. Hughes: May I ask the Minister if he will provide a taxi rank in Palace Yard, and is he aware that the bell to summon taxis rings, often and long, in vain?

Mr. Barnes: I am quite aware of that, and I have suffered the consequences.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister take steps to remedy the position?

Mr. Stephen: Will the Minister try to arrange a more frequent service on the Inner Circle, and get the London Passenger Transport Board to realise that there are places other than the Mansion House?

Mr. Barnes: As I have indicated, all these improved facilities depend upon the return of staff and the improvement of rolling stock.

Major Wyatt: Would the Minister consider supplying a small pool of cars when the House sits late, so that Members can be taken home for nothing, because they do not stay here late at night for their own pleasure?

Mr. Barnes: I shall continue to give this matter my attention, but the irregular Sittings of the House, and the uncertainty with regard to all its habits, make transport arrangements very difficult.

London Bus Services

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of War Transport whether, in view of the increasing hardship to the London public caused by the discourteous and unhelpful attitude of many employees, both drivers and others, on the omni buses of the L.P.T.B., he will take up this matter with the Board in the interests of the travelling public.

Mr. Barnes: I cannot accept the implication in the first part of the Question. I am, however, aware that there is some cause for complaint. The Board assured me that it is their constant care to impress on their employees their duty to be courteous and helpful to the public. The staff have borne the burden of difficult conditions during the years of war. Conditions have not yet returned to normal and I would ask the public as well as the staff to be as helpful as they can.

Commander Noble: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the many complaints that are received on the subject by both London Members and the London Press?

Mr. Barnes: If the hon. and gallant Member will read my reply, he will see that it admits that there is some cause for complaint, and I explained the circumstances which I suggest that the public and the staff could remedy.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: To what extent is the right hon. Gentleman occupying himself with the labour problem? Is he making the life of the Minister of Labour a burden to him, and if not, why not?

Railways (Cheap Fares)

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of War Transport when he intends to reintroduce the cheap day fares on the railways.

Mr. Barnes: I have come to the conclusion that traffic conditions at the moment do not permit of the restoration of cheap fares on the railways. I propose to review the matter in the near future.

Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that in the provinces many trains are running very lightly loaded, and that there, at least, it would be a convenience to the public if they could have cheap fares without injuring the traffic position generally?

Mr. Barnes: I am afraid that these arrangements could not be altered or applied according to the traffic which any particular route or train carries.

Mr. De la Bère: We want better and cheaper travel facilities.

European Child Guests

Flying-Officer Bowden: asked the Minister of War Transport if he will arrange transport for the European children who are to be guests of families in this country during the winter months.

Mr. Barnes: Facilities for passengers between the United Kingdom and the Continent are limited, but I should, of course, be happy to consider whether it would be practicable to make a number of passages available for European children coming to this country under any arrangements that may be approved by His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR FISHING BOATS (COMPENSATION)

Mr. David Jones: asked the Minister of War Transport whether he is now in a position to give the amount of and the date on which, compensation will be paid for the loss of the motor fishing boats "La Belle" and "Hannah" sunk in Hartlepool dock on the night of 19th January, 1945, when the ss. "Empire Gulliver," on charter to his Department, broke from her moorings and was the cause of the loss of the two fishing vessels mentioned above.

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir, but particulars of claims have been asked for, on my behalf, from the legal representatives of the parties concerned. I hope that a settlement will be reached at a very early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (NAVAL RATINGS' FAMILIES)

101. Commander Maitland: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that naval officers

stationed in Malta are now allowed to have their wives and families with them, this concession can be extended to continuous service naval ratings and so encourage such ratings to re-engage for a further period of service.

The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): Subject to the availability of transport there is nothing to prevent the wives of naval ratings serving abroad from making their own arrangements to join their husbands. As my right hon. Friend explained in his reply to the hon. and gallant Member for South Portsmouth (Sir J. Lucas), on 17th October, the extension of free or assisted passages to the wives and families of naval ratings employed on shore abroad for extended periods will be examined as a postwar problem.

Commander Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to make that information public to the lower deck in the Navy?

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is it not now a postwar problem? It is postwar now.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (REQUISITIONED PROPERTY)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for War when it will be possible to reopen Selworthy Hill and North Hill, Minehead, for public use; and when this area will be derequisitioned.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger): As soon as un-exploded missiles on this area have been cleared; it is available for derequisitioning immediately and is only being held until the clearance of these missiles is completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (ANGLO-AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)

Mr. Lipson: ( by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to give the names of the members of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Yes, Sir. The composition of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry will be as follows:

Judge Joseph C. Hutcheson: of the Fifth Circuit Court at Houston, Texas (American Chairman).

Mr. Justice Singletonof the King's Bench Division (British Chairman).

Dr. Frank Aydelotte,Director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, and American Secretary of the Rhodes Trust.

Mr. Frank W. Buxton,Editor of the "Boston Herald."

Mr. W. P. Crick,Economic Adviser to the Midland Bank.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman).

Mr, O. Max Gardner,former Governor of North Carolina.

Sir F. W. Leggett,until recently Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and National Service.

Dr. James G. McDonald, former High Commissioner for Refugees.

The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller).

Lord Morrison, until recently Member for North Tottenham.

The honourable William Phillips, former American Ambassador in Rome.

The committee's terms of reference will be as announced in my statement on the 13th November.

His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the United States Government wish to urge on the committee the need for the utmost expedition in dealing with the subjects committed to them for investigation, and request that they may be furnished with their report within 120 days of the inception of the inquiry.

The procedure of the committee will be determined by the committee themselves, and it will be open to them, if they think fit, to deal simultaneously through the medium of sub-committees with their various terms of reference.

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the members of the committee every good wish for the success of their labours?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is this committee to perform all the tasks—both interim and ad hoc tasks and permanent tasks—or are there to be separate committees?

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE. — (Exemption from purchase tax of wireless sets for the blind.)

The Commissioners may, subject to such conditions as they may impose for the protection of the Revenue, remit purchase tax chargeable in respect of a wireless receiving set, by virtue either of a purchase thereof or of such an appropriation or application thereof as is mentioned in Section twenty-five of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, if they are satisfied, by a certificate to that effect given to them on behalf of a charity registered under Section three of the Blind Persons Act, 1920, that the purchase, appropriation or application, was made for the purpose of making the set available for the use of the blind to the exclusion of use otherwise, and that the property therein will be retained by the charity for that purpose. — [Mr. Dalton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.19 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause carries out the undertaking I gave in the course of the Debate in Committee on this matter. I understand that there has been consultation with those entitled to speak for the blind—I speak for the organisations outside the House—and I understand that this Clause gives satisfaction. I hope it may be regarded as carrying out the undertaking I gave.

Mr. Turton: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends who were associated with me in this matter, for this Clause? As the Chancellor said, we are satisfied with the terms of the Clause, and there is only one question I wish to ask. Will it be possible for wireless sets purchased this Christmas, to get the advantage of this new Clause?

Mr. Dalton: So far as I possibly can arrange for that, I will do so. I will make every endeavour to see that it is so.

Mr. Murray: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I, along with others, pressed

the previous two Chancellors to do something in this respect for the blind people. Each gave a negative answer. I am delighted that a Labour Chancellor has had the honour of breaking down the walls of tradition in this matter and giving these people what has long been their due.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE. — (Temporary exemption from purchase tax of war memorials).

Subject to such conditions as they may impose for the protection of the Revenue, the Commissioners, upon an application in that behalf made to them within the period of five years beginning with the passing of this Act, may remit purchase tax chargeable in respect of an article of furniture, plate or textile material, or an ornament, by virtue either of a purchase thereof or of such an appropriation or application thereof as is mentioned in Section twenty-five of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, if they are satisfied that the purchase appropriation or application was made for the purpose of placing the article or ornament in a place of religious worship as a war memorial and that it will be retained therein. — [Mr. Dalton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause also relates to an undertaking which I gave when the question of war memorials was being discussed in Committee and I should explain to the House that I am presenting the Clause in a slightly altered form designed, as I hope, to remove any doubt as to whether it meets the conditions of the case, and substituting five years for three years. The Clause, therefore, will give this exemption for the various articles indicated in an Amendment originally moved by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) and I hope that this Clause meets his point. I have had a few words from time to time since this was previously discussed, with various hon. Members. I have felt it necessary to impose some time limit. It will be possible, as we approach the end of the time limit, for the question to be looked at again to see whether there is a case for continuing this exemption further, but I hope those who intend to set up war memorials will not lose time. Much of the interest and memory fade in time, but as I say I or my successor will consider a possible extension. This is not


the type of proposal I wish to accept at all freely, because as was pointed out in the Committee stage on another matter, it is administratively rather difficult to distinguish between textile, and non-textile. It is not simply a question of the character of the article, but of the use to which it is put, or the group of persons who are to make use of it. Therefore, I ask the House again, as I did on the question of wireless for the blind, not to press me to make too many exemptions of this form from the Purchase Tax. This, however, is a special case and I hope the Clause will be accepted by the House as a reasonable attempt to meet it.

Mr. Keeling: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although I agree that war memorials ought to be completed as soon as possible, I hardly think it is possible, with the limitations of supply and labour, that all will be completed in the next five years. What I hope is that in the five years, the Purchase Tax will be removed altogether, and therefore this Clause will cease to have effect. I am grateful to the Chancellor for having met us so well.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE—(Amendment of 8 &amp; 9Geo. 6, c. 32, s. 8.)

The initial allowances under Part I of the Income Tax Act, 1945, made to any person who incurs capital expenditure on the construction of a building or structure which is to be an industrial building or structure occupied for the purposes of a trade shall be made to any person who incurs capital expenditure on the construct ion of a building or structure in use for the purpose of a trade carried on in an hotel, and Section eight of the Income Tax Act shall be accordingly read as though the words "(g) For the purposes of a trade carried on in an hotel "were inserted after sub-paragraph (f) of Subsection (I) of the said Section and the word "hotel" omitted from Subsection (3) of the said Section. —[Wing-Commander Robin son.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: I beg to move," That the Clause be read a Second time."
To many Members of the House, the principle raised by this Clause will not be entirely new. Those who were here in the last Parliament will remember some

of the discussions that took place on the Income Tax Act when the question was raised, and the then Ministry reviewed the position we put before them, and made some small concession towards it. Now, under the changed circumstances of peace, we are asking that the position of the hotel and tourist industry of this country may be reviewed so that we can adapt ourselves to changed conditions. The Income Tax Act of "1945 gave some important allowances in connection with new buildings and structural alterations to old ones, and allowances were made in connection with Income Tax to the extent of 10 per cent. of the cost in the first period, and thereafter at the rate of 2 per cent. per annum, until the capital charges were written off. Unfortunately, these allowances were confined to industrial buildings or structures which were, supposedly, of a productive nature and they covered buildings such as mills and factories, storage establishments, mines and wells, transport undertakings, and water and electricity undertakings.
For some inexplicable reason, the allowances did not include hotels, and to them a small concession was made, and allowances for machinery and plant were extended to structural alterations necessary for the installation of machinery and plant. Our case today is that this allowance should be extended to the hotel industry on equal terms with the other industries of the country. The time has come when it is absolutely vital that the hotel industry should be regarded as one of the productive industries of the country. The hotel industry is not a luxury, but one of the necessities of the industrial life of this country. There is one point which should appeal especially to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we have a well developed hotel industry, it can probably bring in a large volume of foreign exchange to this country at a time when we need it.
It is interesting to consider how big is the problem. A general estimate is that, between the two wars, the tourist industry was bringing into this country something over £30,000,000 per annum. It is our belief that with the proper development of this industry in peace time, it can make a contribution to the invisible exports of our country which may easily be over £100,000,000 a year. That is a big sum. It compares with something like £411,000,000 in exports which the
rest of the industries in this country were able to obtain in the first eight months of the year. I do suggest that here is an industry which now, and in the future, can take its place alongside the great basic industries of the country, coal, iron and steel, cotton, and chemicals, in the contribution it will make in bringing in foreign exchange. The Government need exports. They want foreign exchange; here is one of the greatest opportunities of acquiring it in the years after the war.
At the moment, the hotel industry is suffering all over the country, from lack of accommodation. Hon. Members know that it is difficult to get an hotel room anywhere, from Blackpool to London, or from Edinburgh to Torquay. We have not enough at the moment even to look after ourselves, and with the greatly expanding tourist industry, I believe the Government ought to put that industry in the same position as that of other industries in the country. In the next few days we shall be discussing the big dollar loan from the United States. Here is an opportunity by which we can get some of the dollars to repay the vast loan this country is facing. In the years after the war I believe that from America, as from all over the world, we can have coming into our country a vast influx of tourists. They will come for many reasons. People all over the world know that this country has done a good job, and they want to come and look at the people, and to see what has happened to our cities and towns during the war. Curiosity will bring people to see us once, but if we cannot look after them, and do not make them comfortable, they will never come back. We want to have our hotel industry in such a fine position that people are interested and attracted, so that if they come once, they come again, year after year, and we have a great volume of tourists coming into the country helping our exchange circumstances.
3.30 p.m.
It is useless for us, in this country, to advertise our wares if we have to send away dissatisfied customers. I appeal to the Chancellor on other grounds. We want the hotel industry to try to cater for the workers of industry all over our country. The Minister of Labour recently received a report from the Catering Wages

Commission which pointed out to the Minister that, in the postwar period, on account of the great social reforms of the past few years, something like 30,000,000 will be having holidays with pay. These people have done their best for the country in the past, and they deserve the best. When their holiday comes round they will be looking for places where they can find ease and comfort, and enjoy a glorious care-free holiday. That will help to repay them for their years of hard work, and to refresh them for the labour of the next year. If this country can develop the hotel industry so, these workers will be able to get the holiday that they so much want. The workers' health is necessary to the industrial strength of the community, and the expansion of the hotel industry would be a benefit to the productive and creative capacity of industry. I ask the Government to consider the acceptance of this Clause, so that the hotel industry can be given a chance of increasing its capacity to cater for the needs of all our people.
There is one other reason that I would ask the Chancellor to consider, and that is the position of the workers in the industry itself. There are many hotels in this country which are old-fashioned, and where the working conditions in the kitchens and the pantries are not as we would like them to be. Why should the hotel industry be denied the tax allowances which are given to practically every other industry in this country, towards the improvement of conditions under which their workers have to live. We want spacious and modern kitchens, and decent working conditions for everyone in the industry and if the Chancellor resists this proposal he will only make it very difficult to improve the conditions of the people working in the hotel industry itself. The Chancellor and other Members will, no doubt, remember that some little time ago, the Foreign Secretary when he was Minister of Labour, piloted the Catering Act through this House. He then held out a great inducement to the workers of our country to go into the catering industry and said that the Government would help to make this industry one of the best in the country, in which everyone would be able to work under the best conditions. I would quote from the Foreign Secretary himself. The right hon. Gentleman said that this industry would become


 one of our most profitable industries— profitable in the real national sense, profitable in service, contributing, as I think it must do, to the organised leisure of our country, contributing to the morale of our people after the war, contributing, as I think it will, by the sources of wealth that it will bring to our country." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1943. Vol. 388, c. 1633.]
This is the industry in whose interest I am moving the Second Reading of this new Clause and I appeal to the Chancellor to help us to establish our rightful position, so that as we can take our place alongside the great basic industries of this country.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to second the Motion.
I would remind the House that when a Debate last took place on this subject we were still at war, and conditions were somewhat different. In that Debate, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to consider whether plant and machinery and equipment, as used in hotels, could be included for allowances under Part II of the Bill, in particular because of alterations to buildings resulting from the installation of plant or machinery. This point has to some extent been met by Section 21 of the Income Tax Act of 1945, but it has yet, as far as I can see, to be mentioned specifically in the Finance Bill, and to bring within the scope of Part II the equipment and machinery which may be necessary to create the improvements which will be needed, if our hotels are to be really up to date.
For example, such items as lifts normally come within the description of plant and machinery but I do not believe that the Revenue will agree to the inclusion of hot and cold water installations, basins in bedrooms, of lavatories, of the provision of baths, ventilation, or central heating installations except perhaps the actual boilers. I do not believe the Revenue will allow these to be included unless specifically mentioned in Part II or unless there is some directive to the Revenue. During the last Debate the then Chancellor said:
 My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cardiff South spoke about hot water systems, lifts, central heating, air-conditioning and all sorts of things. All that plant and equipment will, under another Part of this Bill be eligible for an allowance. It may get the allowance which is set out in this Bill, or it may, in some cases, qualify for an allowance on a renewal basis." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1945; Vol. 410, c. 1192.]

I would like an assurance that these things can be included in Part II. The concession made in the 1945 Act was an important one but I said at that time, and I repeat it now, that I personally am not satisfied with what the then Chancellor conceded. I believe it is now urgently necessary that the hotel industry should be looked upon as one of the great industries of this country and it should be looked upon as productive in the same way as factories and the like and therefore should be included in Part I of this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the importance of exports. I wonder if the Committee really appreciate the income that the hotel industry brings to this country. I wonder whether it is realised that in 1937, which is the nearest appropriate period from which we can take these figures, that the tourist trade raised £31,500,000, and we confidently believe that that figure in post-war years could be brought up to something like 100 million pounds.

Mr. Bowles: Does the hon. Member mean traffic coming from abroad?

Mr. Taylor: It is tourist traffic from overseas and is comparable with other industries like the iron and steel industry which produced £48,500,000. These exports are invisible and are perhaps in a way more valuable than actual exports. The Government have from time to time paid lip service to the export trade and to the necessity for increasing it. Here is an opportunity. The Government could say to the hotel industry that it was willing to help to improve it, to improve the conditions under which the people work, to make the whole industry up to date and so give visitors from overseas encouragement to visit this country. I do hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply will be generous to this proposal and I hope that the industry will be included under Part II as well as Part I.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): I am sure we have all listened carefully to the eloquent appeal made on behalf of the hotel industry by the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Blackpool South (Wing-Commander Robinson) and perhaps we might all like to be persuaded by him. But I must urge upon the


House the fact that the hotel trade cannot fairly be called one of the basic industries of this country. The Income Tax Act of 1945 as was stated during the Committee stage of this present Finance Bill, was expressly designed to assist and forward the productive and creative industries. The hotel industry, no doubt, has great possibilities and I do not say for a moment that it has not and will not discharge one of the more useful functions to the community. But it cannot yet be fairly stated to have qualified to be one of the major basic activities of this country upon which the life-blood of the country depends. It is not, in consequence, within the sphere of those activities which come within the purview of the Act, an Act definitely and deliberately formulated in order to apply only to those which were of prime importance. It is a question of priorities and I am sorry to say that the view of the Government is that the hotel trade has not yet reached the requisite place in the order of priorities.

Wing-Commander Robinson: Could I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman one question? In suggesting that this industry has become one of the major industries, I did quote figures to support my case and it is my view that those figures prove that the industry is of major importance. For this reason, I do not feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman should just come down to the House and say it is not a very important industry, unless he can produce facts and evidence to this House to prove to the contrary. If he has these, I suggest he should give them to the House in more detail.

The Solicitor-General: I do not say and I did not say that it is not an important trade. On the contrary I stated that it has great possibilities but what I am saying now is that there are other things which come before it and must, in the present state of affairs, take priority. I would like to remind the House that in point of fact the hotel trade has not been harshly treated because if hon. Members will look at the provisions of Sections 15 and 21 of the Income Tax Act of 1945 it will be seen that a considerable measure of assistance was offered to the hotel trade. Hon. Members will no doubt remember that Section 15 provided an allowance of one-fifth towards the cost

of plant and machinery and then as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Taylor)stated, Section 21 of the Act extended that beyond plant and machinery, to the cost of making the necessary structural alterations in order to install that plant and machinery.

3.45 p.m.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Taylor) asked exactly what that included, and suggested that some sort of directive might be given by the Treasury. It is difficult offhand to give a comprehensive definition of plant and machinery, but he mentioned, I think, hot water installations. Speaking offhand, without having considered the matter in detail, I should think that hot water installations would come within the category of plant, and, therefore, if a hotel in renovating its premises decided to include a new hot water installation, necessitating structural alterations, both the cost of the hot water installation, and the cost of the structural alterations would qualify for the allowance.

Mr. Taylor: I agree about the hot water system, but would the actual hand basins in the bedrooms in the hotel also be included?

The Solicitor-General: I do not want to bind myself, but frankly I should have thought so. I should have thought that a tap was part of the plant. That is an offhand expression of opinion. I would certainly include boilers and anything of that sort. I would include a great deal of the kitchen apparatus to which reference has been made, and would include all the major items of expense which a hotel owner would incur in the course of renovating his hotel for the purpose of bringing it up to date. I regret that the Government feel impelled to ask the House to vote against this new Clause. In the view of the Government, the hotel trade is adequately protected by Sections 15 and 21, and a case has not yet been made out for saying that it comes within the limited category to enable it to qualify.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: I was very sorry indeed to hear the Solicitor-General's speech, and frankly I am unhappy to think that he takes the matter in rather a light vein. After all, we represent constituencies in which the hotel industry is actually the main industry of those different towns. So far as


I can understand the argument, it is that plant and machinery are to be helped because they are going to be of particular use in our export trade, in trade with the outside world and in getting back to this country other goods or dollars, or some other form of financial help. Can the Solicitor-General show how many industries in normal times are going to bring as much money, or the equivalent in goods, as would the hotel trade if built up to that £100 million figure, which we firmly believe it could bring into the country? Even the prewar figure of £30 million puts it in a high category already. We know it reached that figure before the war. If one studies the revenue brought by tourist traffic to Canada, France, Switzerland and places like that, one sees it has been a tremendous source of revenue. It has always been looked upon with great seriousness by the respective Governments. We are now told that it is not possible to grant the concession because hotels come low down on the list of priorities, for no apparent reason so far as I can see.
If our real object is to get money into this country, surely we ought to take a much greater interest in the possibility of bringing tourists to this country. At the present moment, the Government with one hand are trying to help the Tourist Association to bring people here, and with the other hand they seem to be unwilling to help it in the way which the tourist organisations most want. Take, for example, my own particular constituency. On the front area of Brighton and Hove there are lots of beautiful houses, all old and all of the Regency period. It is almost certain that in the near future these are going to be turned into hotels, very large boarding houses or big blocks of flats. But if they are going to be turned into hotels we are not going to pull them down. We would wish to keep the facade; we would want to keep the front. We would want to keep what will bring Americans and people from foreign countries, because there are few towns left with such beautiful Regency architecture. It will mean the pulling down of walls and the enlarging of rooms and all sorts of things like that. None of those things will come into the present remissions. It is a very serious position. In other parts of the country, large country houses are to be taken over and turned into hotels in vast numbers.
We are going to make it possible for the working people of this country to go to these places and have a rest. It may seem a little far fetched as an argument, but I do not think it is, that if it is desired to improve and bring up to date machinery to help the working man improve his work, then why should not the welfare of the working man be considered just as much? We have been told that everything is going to be done to give the working people a rest and get them to places such as Brighton and Eastbourne. We want them to have as many modern conveniences and opportunities as have the working people of the United States and other countries; then they will be able to work as hard. I hope, therefore, the Solicitor-General is not going to turn his head away from this issue the whole time—it is not the first time it has been brought up—but that he will take our argument more seriously and realise that we are trying to bring dollars, money and people to this country. If we can bring nearly £100 million into this country through the tourist trade in any one year, I think the Government should help us the way we want because they would be helping themselves just as much in the long run.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I was puzzled by the speech of the Solicitor-General. I could not help thinking that he must have been descended from one of the jealous brothers of the prodigal son. There are no fatted calves about him. He would keep all the good food for those who have made a success of things, and would give nothing to the man who wants to start with a clean sheet. I cannot see him in the garb of the good Samaritan. He knows nothing about good Samaritans. He would not help a man who wanted to make a success of things. He used a very hard argument, and I do not think he had thought out the implications of the words he used. I cannot believe he meant to use the general thesis that the hotel industry is not a high priority because it has not done well enough, but that those industries which have done well and will continue to do so will, of course, get all the help. That is, in fact, what he said. We say, as the House has already been told, that this industry is capable of producing £100 million a year in international trade.
I feel sure that at the back of the Solicitor-General's mind is a sort of governmental germ in relation to hotels, sc that he thinks of monstrous, majestic buildings housing millionaires with great Rolls Royces waiting outside. The bulk of the hotel industry of this country is nothing of the sort. If one looks at the actual figures one goes right the way down to quite humble concerns. What do they want more than anything else? With this new era of holidays with pay, they find the hope of an enormous influx of visitors, and they want additional seatings, additional lounges, etc. They realise that their premises will not be enlarged in the immediate future, but they want to be able to plan so that they can have them enlarged. They want to be able to think things out. The Solicitor-General says that because they are not successful enough they cannot be helped. It is a very curious doctrine to come from this Government. How far is that general line of argument going to be applied to other subjects? If that argument is going to be sustained, how is it that the Surtax arrangements are such as they are? How very odd that Surtax has not been reduced enormously on the highest rate of income, if that line of argument is going to be used by His Majesty's Government in helping industry or the individuals concerned. If we are going to have that argument let us go flat out and say, '' Let us crush the hotel industry."
A special inquiry was set up to inquire into the terms and conditions of service of those working in this industry. It is of sufficient importance for them to look into that, but not of sufficient importance to see that the trade is given every assistance to re-establish itself in the national and international life. I am shocked by that argument. I hope the whole matter will be reconsidered It is not that these people say they want to get bricks, steel and hot water at the present moment, but that they must be able to plan. I thought the Government were the people who liked plans to be made. They say: "No, the hotel industry must not make plans at all." What encouragement is that to keen people who want to help their country far more than they want to help merely themselves and their own pockets? The whole life of the hotel industry is built up on supplying service to other people.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I am sorry the Solicitor-General has taker this line, because on Wednesday and Thursday we are going to discuss how we can get some more foreign currency into this country. There is possibly no country in Europe of greater historical and picturesque interest than this. We all know that the hotel industry has not been encouraged in the past, and it is extremely important that we should say to ourselves: Here is an industry which can easily be developed because the whole of the world looked to this country in 1940, and there are millions of people who want to come here. I have relatively few hotels in my constituency—I am not talking from the constituency point of view, but I am not reproaching those hon. Members who have—but I think from the national point of view it is perfectly clear that we have an industry with immense potentialities. I would have thought that the development of the tourist trade would be one of the easier ways of making sure that a great deal of foreign currency came to this country.
When my hon. and learned Friend spoke just now it seemed to me that he was thinking a little too much, purely and solely of the hotel industry. I have spent many years of my life in hotels on the Continent—far more than 1 would have liked—and I have come to realise that in countries where they have developed a tourist industry to a great extent, they have done it because they know that the money spent by people in paying their hotel bills is only a very small part; they know that every tourist who visits the country will spend money in shops and so on, and will bring a large amount of capital into the country. I, therefore, urge upon my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the ancillary and auxiliary sources of capital brought into the country by this tourist traffic, and to see whether he cannot re-consider his decision to reject this new Clause.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. David Eccles: Like the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) I do not represent a constituency where the hotel trade is of much importance, and when we discussed this matter on the Income Tax Bill last summer I was rather against the inclusion of hotels, but this week-end I, and I am sure a great many other Members, have been hacking a way through Bretton Woods,


and as we read that document we have become more and more gloomy about the terms on which this country is to borrow an immense sum of money. The Statistical Memorandum issued by the Government estimates that our deficit on trading account will be £1,250 million in the next three years.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is beginning to anticipate the Debate which has been fixed for Wednesday and Thursday.

Mr. Eccles: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was merely desiring to illustrate why I changed my mind about the inclusion of hotels in these allowances for building. It is because I do not see why a Chancellor of the Exchequer, faced with the present situation, should neglect any reasonable way of getting foreign exchange for this country. What was the defence put up by the Solicitor-General in refusing this new Clause? He cited the principle of the Income Tax Act, which was to give the building allowances only to buildings strictly concerned with the production of goods. As a first step in giving allowances for buildings that seemed the right one to take, but we did not know at that time that our foreign exchange situation was so bad, and the effect of the law now is that we are giving a building allowance to, say, a factory which is producing luxuries for the home trade but—unless this Clause is accepted—we shall not give an allowance to an hotel which would be bringing in foreign exchange. In these days of air travel it is going to be something of a race to see whether we can establish England as a staging place between America and Europe. Aeroplanes do not always fly off again to schedule, and what matters to the passengers is that for two or three days they shall be well looked after when on the ground. I do not think our facilities are adequate, and 1 do not think that even by accepting this Clause we shall be doing what we ought to do to improve our hotels. Something much more drastic is wanted, but this is a step in the right direction, and to refuse this step within two days of the Debate which I must not mention is really unwise. I do hope the Chancellor will think again.

Brigadier Low: I rise to support my hon. Friends, and I must

say that I was horrified by the attitude which the learned Solicitor-General took on this question. It may be that he has not had the advantage of seeing the difficulties under which our hotels are labourings. His present knowledge of hotels may perhaps depend upon his perusal of requisitioning documents. All he knows, as we know, is that most of the hotels are housing Government offices and civil servants. But the time will come when the hotel trade will open up again every where. I overheard an observation by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) to the effect that what we really needed was enterprise on the part of hotel owners. I can assure him that in the part of the world which I represent there is no lack of enterprise, and what we ask now is that the Government will assist them with an extra opportunity to exercise that spirit of enterprise. I would appeal to the Chancellor, whom I had the honour to meet for the first time in a hotel—

Mr. Dalton: At Blackpool.

Brigadier Low: The right hon. Gentleman knows perhaps better than his learned Friend the needs of hotels, and I would appeal to him to reconsider this matter.

Mr. Dalton: It was a very good hotel and very up-to-date.

Brigadier Low: I will pass on that compliment. In reconsidering this matter, may I ask that he will give us a list of those industries which bring into the country more than £30 million a year, and also a list of those industries which are expected to bring in more than £100 million a year, as the hotel industry says it can do if it is allowed to improve? I hope that the Chancellor, who is so well known for his expansiveness in gesture and protestations of policy, will also show himself to be expansive in fact and in deed in this matter.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I intervene only because the trend of this Debate may lead the right hon. Gentleman opposite to come to the conclusion that this is a geographical matter, in view of the speeches delivered by both the hon. and gallant Members for Blackpool (Wing-Commander R. Robinson and Brigadier Low), the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor), the hon. and gallant Member for


Brighton (Flight-Lieutenant Teeling), the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett), and the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles). I rise to make the point that this is also a matter of considerable moment to the East coast resorts. I was a little disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgwater. With great respect, he showed some lack of knowledge of the hostelries in his own divison, many of which I know very well. It occurred to me that his lack of advertisement of some of those very excellent hotels in the West country was, perhaps, due to the austere form of Liberal support which sends him to this House, but I am sure that in his time he has strayed within the portals of the "Plume of Feathers" at Minehead, the "Luttrell Arms" at Dunster, or the "Clarence" at Bridgwater, all of which are excellent hotels. As he failed to give the necessary advertisement I thought I would do it for him.
I hope the Chancellor will not be unduly influenced by the arguments of the Solicitor-General, who appeared, and I hope I am not doing him an injustice, to confine himself to those houses of entertainment which can be patronised by Law Officers of the Crown with five figure incomes. This subject goes very much further down below that level. The new Clause deals not only with luxury hotels at Blackpool or elsewhere where well-known Socialist leaders may stay at conferences, but goes down to the smaller pensions and boarding houses where there is no lack of enterprise, with or without the aspidistras, as suggested by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). They really need this help. I want him to consider the boarding houses in small seaside resorts in the Holderness Division such as Homsea and Withern-sea, to which hon. Members might well go when they require a change of air, because those places would benefit particularly under this new Clause. I hope the Government will look at this question again and take into consideration the points which have been urged. It is an industry which is essential to the well-being of the people at a time when holidays with pay are coming within the purview of practical politics, apart from the question of foreign exchange—an important aspect of the matter which is
reserved until Wednesday and Thursday. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give second thoughts to this matter and not to be led astray by the legal arguments which were addressed to us a little earlier.

Mr. Bowles: As my interventions have been referred to twice I feel that I ought to say something on this subject. On the question of enterprise, I recall that about 1936 a very great friend of mine travelled on the Continent. A friend of his met him when he came back to England and asked, "What kind of a time did you have? What were the hotels like? "The returned traveller said, "Every hotel I stayed in right through Germany, Austria, Yugoslavia and so on, was perfectly wonderful —except one hotel." My friend said, "Where was that?", and the reply was, "The Howard de Walden at Dover, just before I got on the boat." Quite frankly, our hotels are disgraceful. Anybody who has done any motoring and has called at our hotels for a meal at lunch time or in the evening knows that they show no enterprise at all, and that we cannot hold a candle to any of the hotels one comes across on the Continent. I do not think that situation arose merely because the particular concession which is now being asked for had not been granted by Chancellors of the Exchequer in days gone by.
Then we come to the question whether we want to become a Switzerland or a Monte Carlo. I remember the present Foreign Secretary, when he was Minister of Labour, introducing the Catering Wages Bill and speaking of a large number of people wanting to come here for the purpose of seeing our blitzed towns. Since he introduced that Bill there has been a good deal of blitzing in other parts of Europe, and I do not think people want to come to see our blitzed towns very much. As the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) pointed out, we have some lovely countryside and antique buildings and possessions, and it is right that people should come here and admire the country in which we live as much as we do, but I do not think we ought to encourage that from the point of view of getting foreign exchange, for the simple reason that I do not think I should like the beauties of this country to be commercialised in that way. Having regard to the fact that both hon. and gallant Members for Blackpool (Wing-Com-


mander R. Robinson and Brigadier Low) have spoken, I would add that in any case I cannot see why anybody should go to Blackpool except as delegates to the Labour Party Conference, because I do not think there is very much that is attractive there. Stratford-on-Avon— certainly; Weston-Super-Mare—certainly; and there are other places, possibly Eastbourne.

Wing-Commander Robinson: I feel that the hon. Member is provoking me to say something. I hope that next time he comes to Blackpool he will spare time to look at the town, instead of wasting his time making speeches to people already converted to his own point of view.

Mr. Bowles: I took no part really in the Labour Party Conference except to vote for the Executive, and I spent a great deal of time in a very much more entertaining place, the Casino Restaurant. It is about the only bright spot I found in Blackpool—[Interruption.] I will tell the hon. Member where it is afterwards. But I do not think Blackpool is a place to which foreigners would go in a discriminating search for beauty. It has almost a mass invasion during the main months of the year, and even Blackpool had to attract people in October and November by keeping the lights or. During the war that was prohibited. I do not think that is really the kind of thing to do. Mr. Speaker ruled an hon. Member out of Order for anticipating the Debate on Wednesday and Thursday, and I do not doubt that he was right, but I do feel that somehow or other it does come to a question of understanding our economy.

4.15 p.m.

I do not think it is good enough to assume that foreigners coming to this country will necessarily get us out of our difficulties. We shall require to have more food. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Taylor) talked about the invisible imports represented by £31,000,000 which he said this trade would represent, later rising to £100,000,000. I do not think it would necessarily be of advantage to this country from the economic point of view. I may be wrong, and perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell me if I am wrong. I see he is nodding his head. He evidently thinks I am wrong. Well, even the best of friends

are allowed to differ. The Exchequer needs revenue and cannot give many concessions. I am sure that this particular proposal must be low down on the list of priorities. Personally, I support the view put forward by the Solicitor-General.

Captain Crookshank: We have had a bright little Debate on this subject. First I would like to put the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) right about the name of the Dover hotel which he mentioned. The hon. Member is always full of self-assurance, but on this occasion I think he has got the name wrong. I think it should be the "Lord Warden."

Mr. Bowles: To the best of my knowledge it is the "Howard de Walclen."

Captain Crookshank: We are perhaps apt to forget that there are two types of hotel customer. There is first the foreigners whom we hope to get here. They represent a very considerable import. Secondly, there are the people of our own country who will, increasingly, travel about and will be in need of accommodation, owing to the vast extension of holidays with pay. "Hotel" is a word which covers a great variety of establishments. There are the large hotels which we see in the metropolitan area and other big cities. These are of very great importance, especially if London is to become increasingly the centre for commerce and travel, as we hope it will, because it is so convenient a bridge between the New and the Old Worlds. Visitors coming to London temporarily find it very difficult to get accommodation. That fact was becoming apparent before the war. There is room for a great deal of improvement in the hotel accommodation in London. I will admit, as no doubt the Minister would admit, that very large hotels are much the same in every capital city of the world, and they are probably of the same quality here as anywhere else. There is, however, a great lack of hotel accommodation in London, and the present accommodation is not up to the standard of comfort of Continental hotels, and certainly not of hotels in the United States and the Dominions.
When one looks at other parts of the country—and I do not refer to seaside towns, which are places on their own with their own special attractions—one recalls that in the years gone by the country inn


in these islands had a great reputation. That reputation faded out with the ending of the use of the roads, until the motor car was invented. Then there was a great change, and there was a great demand by travellers in all sorts of places up and down the country for accommodation for the night. That demand will, no doubt, increase as the possibility of using large houses as hotels or rest houses comes into play, partly as a result of modern taxation. In both cases there is a great deal to be done to bring these hotels—I use that word, although the place may be only an inn with five or six rooms—up to a reasonable standard, which will attract people to stop there, not merely to get a roof over their heads, but because the places have been made attractive. If the Clause tends in that direction we hope that the Government will take it seriously into consideration.
I frankly admit I am surprised that the Solicitor-General should have been the Minister selected to reply on the Amendment. With all due respect to him, I would point out that he generally gives advice on legal problems, while this Clause is more a matter of business, or is even a human problem. I hope, therefore, that we shall have the benefit of the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon it. I must also take exception to the argument which the Solicitor-General used. He said that the hotel and tourist industry could not yet be called—this is what he actually said— a basic industry. It is difficult to argue what is or is not a basic industry, but this industry at present represents something like £30,000,000 a year, the figure given by one of my hon. Friends, as representing its value in foreign exchange, and he said he hoped that it might rise to £100,000,000. Therefore it is getting on towards a position of considerable importance. It might not be productive or creative, in the sense of making articles, but it does bring in money. It can become an industry of considerable importance.
Take Switzerland. Forty or 50 years ago I suppose that the hotel industry there did not amount to very much, but the Swiss deliberately set out to make their country, industrial though it is in some parts, the playground of Europe. They succeeded, both as regards winter and in summer. There are, no doubt,

great possibilities for us. We may not have great attractions of Nature such as the Alps, but we have our own attractions, which many people would wish to come to see. The hon. Member for Nuneaton referred to his friend's trip abroad. His friend came home with the idea that all the hotels he had been to were perfect, once he had crossed the Channel. It has to he remembered that in most countries, certainly in France and Switzerland, governments have had a great hand in helping the hotel industry, deliberately, as a matter of set policy. Governments in this country have not hitherto, so far as I recollect, done very much in that direction.
There is a provision in the Finance Act of 1945, which includes, as the Solicitor-General said, a relief for machinery and structural alterations to some extent, but much more has to be done. It has to be remembered that the concessions, good as they are and so far as they go, were made when we were still at war. The Government of the day might very well have thought that it was not a matter of great importance at the moment, as the war was still on and there was not much possibility of structural alterations being made within the next few months. All that is now behind us. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will therefore look at the matter with a good deal more favour than the unfortunate Solicitor-General did.

Captain Blackburn: Why "unfortunate"?

Captain Crookshank: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was very unfortunate to be put up to deal with this new Clause and he dealt with it in a very brusque way. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take a different line, especially as he has the benefit of the arguments that have now been put before him. The right hon. Gentleman might perhaps, if he is going to reject the Clause, tell us what cost it would involve. We are always in the difficulty when we put down Amendments from this side of the House that, although the ideas may be good, we have no means of assessing what is financially involved. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that the sum involved would be out of keeping with our present Budgetary position, that might be an argument to be considered. This is the very time when we


ought to be paying particular attention to this matter, in order to attract here, foreigners of all kinds and of all classes. We have in mind not only the luxury hotels but the smaller hotels, so that we may have a real interchange between ourselves, the Continent and the United States. From the national point of view, and in order to get a better relationship between countries, it is probably far more valuable that people like school teachers should come here for a few weeks holiday than it is to have much wealthier people.
These people will wish to have the sort of comfort to which they are accustomed when they travel in their own country, but that cannot be guaranteed at present as between Great Britain and the United States. Because of our financial position and the need for attracting here as much money as possible from overseas, because of the facilities which are being granted in regard to holidays with pay to the great mass of our workers, and because we want to put the hotel business upon a better basis, we ask that a concession on the lines of the proposed new Clause may be granted. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us some hope, both for the present and for the years to come.

Mr. Dalton: We have had an interesting Debate. I do not know why my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General should have been called unfortunate. His Majesty's Government are very fortunate in their Law Officers. They are exceedingly human people. My hon. and learned Friend is a most human personality and his colleague, the Attorney-General, has been associated with this particular matter in an indirect fashion in connection with the Catering Wages Commission, of which he was Chairman.
The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) made a true observation when he said that something much more drastic was needed than a small adjustment of taxation such as is proposed here, if our hotels are to be brought up to the standard we should like to see. There arc exceptions, of course. The hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) and I met for the first time at an hotel in Blackpool —a very good hotel—where I commiserated with him on the uphill fight I believed he was having during the last General Election. There are good hotels in Blackpool as

well as in many other parts of the country, but the majority of our hotels are not what they ought to be, if we are to have the success we desire with our tourist traffic. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) asked me whether I thought he was wrong in regard to a particular part of his argument. I said I thought he was wrong. We hope that visitors to this country from abroad will bring in a good deal more money than it will cost us to feed them, and that they will leave it here. He seemed to think it was a tragedy that they should come here and eat food, because it would cost us a lot of money to get more food. We hope to get a great deal more out of them than the cost of looking after them. I am favourably disposed to doing everything we can on broad lines—I do not think this proposal is on broad lines. It is on very narrow lines—to improve the efficiency and vitality of the hotel industry.
We cannot accept the proposed new Clause, for several reasons, some of which have been mentioned by the Solicitor-General. There are great difficulties in distinguishing between hotels—the new Clause simply speaks of "hotels "—and lodging houses, and boarding houses of various kinds. We should get into a considerable administrative morass if we were to offer these facilities, refunds and so on relating to the structure of buildings. The introduction of heating plant for hot and cold water, and so on, is all covered now. If we got on to the question of structure, we should have endless Debates.. The two hon. and gallant Members for Blackpool would be coming back again pleading the cause not only of the great hotels where they stay when they visit their constituencies, but the smaller places which take in the poorer visitors from Lancashire.

4.30 p.m.

Wing-Commander Robinson: Never in my life have I stayed in an hotel in Blackpool. I have lived there.

Mr. Dalton: I should perhaps have said the hotels which the hon. and gallant Gentleman visits in the course of the day. Quite seriously, one cannot draw an effective administrative line between an hotel and a boarding house, and I do not think we ought to try. I revert to the statement of the


hon. Member for Chippenham; something much more drastic is required, and I can give the assurance that the Government, apart altogether from this Finance Bill, is very greatly concerned to assist the development and improvement of all our facilities for visitors from overseas, whether from our own Dominions, the United States or Europe. We are very anxious to see the catering and hotel industry generally built up to a point at which we can hope to attract, not for just once but perhaps for a series of visits, large numbers of people from all over the world. We are most anxious to do that, and it is a large aim, but this particular Amendment is small in conception, very difficult in administration, and would really do very little indeed towards achieving what we all have at heart.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: The cost?

Mr. Dalton: It is difficult to estimate the cost because it is difficult to draw a line. There would be infinite discussion as to what is and what is not an hotel. I am not however arguing on the score of cost; I should not contend that the acceptance of this Amendment would wholly wreck the financial scheme of the year; my contention against it is along a different line. It is an inadequate approach to this large question, and it presents a great deal of administrative

difficulty, and I hope therefore that the hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press the Amendment, although if they want a Division we shall be very glad to oblige them. I do undertake, however, that the Government are looking at the whole question of the hotel industry with the desire to do whatever we can to stimulate its development, in order that we shall be able to give a worthy welcome to an increasing number of visitors from overseas.

Mr. Bartlett: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us some sort of detail? He said that he proposed to achieve this large aim of encouraging the hotel industry; would it be fair to ask whether he can give us any idea of what the Government has in mind towards that object?

Mr. Dalton: Hardly today, on this Clause, I think.

Wing-Commander Robinson: I would like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the much more sympathetic attitude that we had from him as compared with that of the learned Solicitor-General. However, this case has gone a long way, and I feel that sympathy is not enough. We need action, and therefore I feel we should divide the House.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 243.

Division No. 48.
AYES.
[4.35 p.m.


Astor, Hon. M.
Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)


Baldwin, A. E.
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Bartlett, V.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Baxter, A. B.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Gridley, Sir A.
Marples, Capt. A. E.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Grimston R. V.
Marsden, Capt. A.


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)


Boothby, R.
Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Mellor, Sir J.


Bower, N.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Molson, A. H. E.


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.


Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.
Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley
Nicholson, G.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Howard, Hon. A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Nutting, Anthony


Butcher, H. W.
Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Carson, E.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Keeling, E. H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lambert, G.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col.O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Linstead, H. N.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland


Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield
Lipson, D. L.
Ropner, Col. L.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Luoas-Tooth, Sir H.
Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)


Drewe, C.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Eccles, D. M.
McCallum, Maj. D. 
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.




Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
York, C.


Sutcliffe, H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.



Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Teeling, Flt.-Lieut. W.
Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)
 Mr. Studholme and Commander Agnew.




NOES.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Gilzean, A.
Orbach, M.


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Gooch, E. G.
Paget, R. T.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Goodrich, H. E.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Allighan, Garry
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, J.


Alpass, J. H.
Grenfell, D. R.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Grey, C. F.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Grierson, E.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Attewell, H. C.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Austin, H. L.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Perrins, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Piratin, P.


Ayles, W. H.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Guy, W. H.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Bacon, Miss A.
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Popplewell, E.


Baird, Capt. J.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Barstow, P. G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Porter, G. (Leads)


Barton, C.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Proctor, W. T.


Battley, J. R.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Haworth, J.
Randall, H. E.


Belcher, J. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ranger, J.


Beswick, Fit.-Lieut. F.
Herbison, Miss M.
Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R,


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, G.
Reeves, J.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Hobson, C. R.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Blackburn, Capt. A. R.
Holman, P.
Rhodes, H.


Boardman, H.
Horabin, T. L.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M,


Botlomley, A. G.
House, G.
Robens, A.


Bowden, Flg.-Oflr. H. W.
Hoy, J.
Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lhampton, W.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Royle, C.


Brown, George (Belper)
Janner, B.
Sargood, R.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Burden, T. W.
Keenan, W.
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)


Burke, W. A.
Kenyon, C.
Shurmer, P.


Callaghan, James.
Kinley, J.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lang, G.
Simmons, C. J.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Skeffington, A. M.


Chater, D.
Leslie, J. R.
Skinnard, F. W.


Clitherow, R.
Levy, B. W.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Cluse, W. S.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Cooks, F. S.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Colliok, P.
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Collindridge, F.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Collins, V. J.
Longden, F.
Solley, L. J.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Lyne, A. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Comyns, Dr. L.
McAdam, W.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Cook, T. F.
McEntee, V. La T.
Sparks, J. A.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Mack, J. D.
Stamford, W.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stephen, C.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Cove, W. G.
McLeavy, F.
Stokes, R. R.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Strauss, G. R.


Daggar, G.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Stubbs, A. E.


Daines, P.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Swingler, Capt. S.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Marquand, H. A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Mathers, G.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Davies, Haydn (St. Panoras, S.W.)
Mayhew, Maj. C. P.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mikardo, lan
Thorneycroft, H.


Dobbie, W.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Thurtle, E.


Dodds, N. N.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Tiffany, S.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Montague, F.
Tolley, L.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Edelman, M.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Mort, D. L.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards. John Blackburn).
Moyle, A.
Walkden, E.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Murray, J. D.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Foot M. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Warbey, W. N.


Gallacher. W.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Watkins, T. E.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Weilzman, D.


Gibson, C. W.
Oldfield, W. H.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)







Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)
Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Zilliacus, K.


Whiteley, Kt. Hon. W.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)



Wilkes, Maj. L.
Wiliiamson, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wilkins, W. A.
Willis, E.
Mr. Pearson and Captain Blenkinsop.


Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Woods, G. S.



Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Yates, V. F.

NEW CLAUSE. — (Investment.)

Any profits arising from an allocation of stock or other securities in substitution for stocks or shares held in any undertaking which is the subject of nationalisation, shall not be deemed to be profits arising on a sale of such stocks or shares for purposes of taxation. — [Lieut.-Colonel Birch.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Nigel Birch: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Clause as it stands would, I have no doubt, require or at any rate receive considerable further elaboration if its principles were accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there has in fact been considerable technical difficulty in drafting this Clause, to which I will refer in a moment. There is no electoral interest in this at all. I do not think it will catch anybody any votes, but it does involve a question of principle, and as nationalisation proceeds it will make a very great deal of practical difference to a number of institutions. The first point is that this Clause really only affects certain institutions, such as banks and insurance companies, whose taxation is affected by realised capital profits or losses. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) will speak on the legal aspect of this matter, and as I do not want to weary the House by going into the technical side of the matter, I will give an over-simplified mathematical illustration of the point I have in mind. I will take the case of two insurance companies. Insurance companies are great people for making plans, and what they make plans about, of course, is their income for long periods ahead. Let us take the case of two insurance companies, one of which buys £100 of Bank of England stock, and the other of which buys £400 of Local Loans stock.
I take that illustration because it was used by the Government in the Select Committee on the Bank of England Bill. They took £400 of Local Loans stock as being almost exactly equivalent of £100

of Bank of England stock. Companies buying either £100 of Bank stock or £400 of Local Loans stock were, in fact, buying the right to an income of £12 gross per annum in what appeared to be perpetuity. In 1931, for reasons into which we need not go now, gilt-edged prices were very low indeed; I think I am correct in saying that Bank of England stock went as low at £230. It is now approximately £395. Therefore, someone who is liable to tax on capital profits is liable in respect of quite a considerable sum. Taking the profit made and capitalised at 3 per cent., it would boil down to this, that while the insurance company which acquired £400 of Local Loans stock would still be receiving a gross income of £12 per annum, the unfortunate insurance company which bought Bank stock on the assumption that it was equivalent to a Government security and was liable to 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax would have its income reduced to just over £7 per annum. That would be entirely due to force majeure and not in any way through its own fault, because it was perfectly reasonable, as was admitted in the Bank of England Bill, to assume that this stock was as good as a gilt-edged stock paying the same rate of interest.
It is not only a case of capital profits. I have no doubt that some schemes of nationalisation will result in very substantial capital losses. This was the technical difficulty in drafting this new Clause. We could not draft a Clause in the very simple form of saying that a change of investments owing to nationalisation should not be equivalent to a sale, because a Private Member might be held in that case to be proposing an increase in taxation. The matter works both ways. I am not appealing that institutions should get off tax to which they are really liable. All I say is that they should retain, as they now have, the option as to when those profits or losses are taken. Under the present law it will be extremely difficult for an insurance company to plan ahead if there is the likelihood that, for some reason over which it has no control it is suddenly held to have made a sale


of some investment and is charged a very large sum in taxation on that sale.

Brigadier Low: I beg to second the Motion. 
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Flint (Lieut.-Colonel Birch) has raised a nice point. I have been looking into the legal side of it. I am somewhat surprised to find that, although this case is a somewhat difficult one, the Chancellor has not at the moment got the Solicitor-General at his side. As my hon. and gallant Friend stated, the law at the moment is that persons who, while carrying on their business, may from time to time vary investments, any money made by them from the realisation of an investment is part of the profits of their trade for the purpose of Income Tax. One might well have thought that this principle would not be applied to variations of investments forced upon such persons either by statute, by order of the Treasury, or by what I might call a quasi-compulsory offer by the Treasury for a conversion. The two leading cases on this subject show that one would have been quite wrong in thinking that the principle did not apply to those cases. No doubt the Chancellor is well acquainted with those two cases. The first case, that of the Royal Insurance Company v. Stephen, which was reported in the 44th volume of the "Times Law Reports," was concerned with the railways amalgamation under the 1921 Act. In that case the insurance company, which held certain stocks in various railway companies affected by the provisions of the Railway Act, was forced under that Act to exchange the whole of its stocks for new stock in the amalgamated companies. It was held that the effect of what had happened was that the old investments had been realised, and therefore, in that case the insurance company was able to take advantage of its loss under that realisation and to claim deductions in respect of tax.
The other case was that of the Westminster Bank v. Osner, in 1933, which was concerned with a quasi-compulsory offer by the Treasury. In that case the Bank exchanged its National War Bonds for War Loan and Conversion under terms that increased the value of its investment funds. This was held to be a realisation, and, therefore, the profit was chargeable to Income Tax. It was pointed

out in that case, in which the House of Lords upheld the decision, that arrangements had already been made under the Finance Act (No. 2), 1931, whereby persons affected by conversions were in certain cases, where they were so authorised by the Treasury, to be treated for Income Tax purposes as if the exchange of securities had not taken place, unless—and this is important—they gave notice that they desired not to be so treated. In other words, the persons who may, so to speak, make investments as part of their business, in cases where their investments had been exchanged as a result of conversion, were given an option as to whether or not they wished to regard themselves as having made the exchange or not having made the exchange. In the new Clause there is no such option, because we take it that in cases where a profit has been made the stockholder will obviously make the option to regard the exchange as not having taken place. We do not refer to cases where a loss has resulted for a technical reason to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred, and also for other reasons which no doubt the Chancellor can think of for himself. I crave the indulgence of the Chancellor and the House on behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend and myself in that we have had some difficulty in drafting the Clause, but I have no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend made the point clear, and I have tried to add something from the legal point of view.

Mr. Dalton: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Flint (Lieut.-Colonel Birch) and the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low), because I understand their concern has been to smooth the progress of nationalisation and to make the policy of the Government generally acceptable to all those affected, without any suggestion of unfair treatment arising, and I welcome very much their co-operation. I think— I emphasise "think," because I am not quite sure —that their case is a good one both in equity and in law. As they have said, it has been difficult for them to draft a Clause to carry out exactly what they have in mind. I am advised that this new Clause would not quite do, but I am prepared to go into the matter and to make some statement on it when I introduce the Finance Bill next April. It is a matter on which clarification is necessary. It will be quite lime enough then, because the first of many Measures of


nationalisation which will be passed in this Parliament—that relating to the Bank of England—will no doubt be law by April, but the exchange of securities to be effected will not affect current tax liabilities in this financial year. There will be time enough to deal with the matter on its merits in the next Finance Bill. I undertake to do that.
I think the hon. and gallant Member for Flint made a valid point about the interchange of Local Loans and Bank stock. I readily say that it would be quite wrong, in the case of two insurance companies one of which invested in Local Loans stock and the other in Bank of England stock, to penalise the latter as against the former when the change takes place into the new 3 per cent. Government Stock contemplated by the Bank of England Bill. Therefore, I accept provisionally—unless some further argument can be produced in my further consideration of the matter—the argument the hon. and gallant Gentlemen have made, and I will undertake to deal with the matter in the next Finance Bill. I shall not necessarily do so exactly on the lines of this new Clause, but I will look into it with a view to removing either doubt or unfairness in the treatment of persons who hold stocks due to be exchanged under nationalisation Measures.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Hon. Members on this side are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor for the reply he has given. My hon. and gallant Friends who have moved and seconded the new Clause have a good case which they have put with moderation. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, on their behalf and on my own, that we shall always be only too anxious to help him to remove the grosser inequities which will arise from the programme of nationalisation, as indeed we always try to help him to avoid the greater inefficiency. It is a promising beginning, and if he goes on as he has started, we have every hope that, before the end, some of these Measures may go through, if not with any profit to the country, at least without any great loss. We shall look forward, when the Budget comes, to the sincere effort of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with this difficult question, and that

being so, I hope that my hon. and gallant friend will be able to withdraw the Motion.

Lieut.-Colonel Birch: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, with-drawn.

NEW CLAUSE. — (Amendment as to temporary residence in the United Kingdom.)

A person who has actually resided in the United Kingdom at one time or several times for a period equal in the whole to six months or longer in any year of assessment shall not be chargeable to tax under Rule 2 of the Miscellaneous Rules applicable to Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918, for that year if such residence shall be due to circumstances arising out of the present war and shall be for some temporary purpose only and not with any view or intent of establishing his residence therein. — (Sir A. Gridley.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Arnold Gridley: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is with your assent, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and having given notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I am moving the Second Reading of this new Clause which is not on the Paper. The function of the Clause is really to deal with a very special case of what may be very serious financial hardship. If I may take Malaya as an example, there are a great many people in managerial and staff positions in the service of tin-mining companies, rubber estates and trading businesses, civil servants and so on, who for over three and a half years were prisoners of war in the hands of the Japanese, and many of whom have suffered grievously. Happily, a large number have been rescued and are now back in this country, but they may be in this position. In ordinary times, a man serving in a foreign country may have six months' home leave every two or three years. If he stays in this country for more than six months, his salary is liable to Income Tax deduction. The result is that most people who have six months' leave spend a part of the time out of the country so that they are not involved in Income Tax liability. In present circumstances, arising out of the war, a great many of these people, now at home, may be compelled, for medical reasons, to stay for a longer period than six months. I know of cases where doctors have said that they should remain


here for nine months or a year before they would be really fit to go back again. It would be a great additional hardship, on top of all that they have already suffered, if they were to be financially hit by the operation of a tax which was not intended to fall upon them in circumstances such as those that I have described.
Most of them have lost their all, and such moneys as have been accumulated on their behalf by way of income during their incarceration, and which will fall due to be paid to them, will be looked upon as money with which to reinstate themselves when they go back and refurnish their homes. They have not been informed to what extent they might look to the Government or for assistance whereby they might be able to rehabilitate themselves. It is a special case which needs, in justice and fairness, sympathetic consideration, and for that reason I thought it necessary, in the interests of those who have suffered so much on our behalf, to bring this Clause forward. I am sure that the Chancellor will look at it with a sympathetic eye.

Lieut.-Colonel Birch: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) has handed in this new Clause in manuscript. He has been good enough to furnish me with a typewritten copy of it, but, frankly, I have not had time to consult my advisers fully about it. It will need looking into, and my untutored judgment is that the case which he has made regarding those people who have been prisoners of war in Japanese hands and have suffered in health, and with whom we have much sympathy, is not what the new Clause says at all. The new Clause is very much wider than that and says that a person actually resident in the United Kingdom should be subject to relief these are th—e words which are to carry out the definition of the Clause—
 if such residence shall be due to circumstances arising out of the present war.
That is very much wider than persons suffering as prisoners of war in the hands of the Japanese. I could not think of accepting the Clause. It would open the door to all kinds of argument. People would say that they could not pay Income Tax because they had been residing in this country through circumstances aris-

ing out of the war. I do not make any complaints, but, as this new Clause has been produced at very short notice and has not been put upon the Paper, it has not been possible to treat it in the way that proposals of this kind are ordinarily treated and to get the views of our advisers. We are not ready to accept this particular form of words, partly on the grounds of short notice, and partly because it is much wider than is necessary to carry out the purpose which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
It is not easy in any case to make a special Income Tax relief arrangement for a narrowly denned class of persons who have been prisoners of war and have suffered in health and will have to stay here rather longer than they normally would. It is difficult to define. If I say that I will give an undertaking in this matter, I do not want to be misunderstood; I am rather unhopeful that we can, within the ambit of the Income Tax law, do what the hon. Member wants to do for a class with whom we all sympathise. Before the next Finance Bill —and perhaps the hon. Member might like to communicate with me—we can see what we can do to help them within the fiscal field, but much as I would like to do it, I am rather doubtful whether fiscal arrangements would quite meet the case. I cannot accept, or advise the House to accept, this new Clause now and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press it.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: All of us will understand that the right hon. Gentleman could not be expected to give a definite answer on a Clause of this kind which he has only just read, but I hope that he will consider it between now and the Budget of next April. I ask this particularly, because when I was at the Colonial Office, I came across several very hard cases where Colonial servants, who had come back perhaps not even on leave, but for consultation and had been detained beyond the six months through lack of shipping. It was not through any desire of their own but through inability to get out of the country, and they had been asked to pay Income Tax. There were cases of illness where the people were in the final stages of convalescence and had suffered very heavily financially. In several cases the Treasury through administrative action was able to give a great deal of relief, and it may well be


that, if the right hon. Gentleman looked at this in regard to some of the precedents, he might find that, if it is not possible to legislate on the matter, he might be able to give a good deal of relief administratively.

Sir A. Gridley: With the leave of the House, I would like to say a further word or two.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw the Motion?

Sir A. Gridley: I only want to say a word or two.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot make a second speech.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: There is one point which strikes me and I hope that I am not presumptuous in suggesting that the Chancellor should examine the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) has put. The six months period was intended to be a yardstick by which the Treasury and the Income Tax authorities determined whether a man was really resident in this country or not. Would it not meet the case if a man normally not resident in this country, who was delayed for six months, produced a medical certificate, whatever his occupation was abroad, to show that it was in consequence of ill-health that he had been delayed in this country for six months? Would not that ease the situation?

Mr. Dalton: indicated assent.

Sir A. Gridley: Having regard to what the Chancellor says, namely, that he will look at this matter again between now and the next Finance Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, with-drawn.

CLAUSE 36. — (Time for repayment of postwar refunds.)

Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, in page 31, line 28, at end, insert:
 The said payments on account of any such postwar refund shall, unless the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have reasonable cause to reduce the amount, be nine-tenths of the sum which is likely to be found due and shall be made within three months of the date of the

delivery to them of the accounts of the charge able accounting period which includes the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-five.
The reason why I put down this Amendment is that there may be very considerable sums of refunds of E.P.T. due to taxpayers. The Bill, so far, decides how much may be paid on account by the Inland Revenue Commissioners. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, indicated that he was anxious that the refund of E.P.T. should begin to be repaid as soon as possible. Many traders have been relying upon the postwar refunds to pay for the re-equipment of their factories with new machine tools and so on, to bring them up-to-date. It may take some time to settle the final liability between the Treasury and the taxpayer. Therefore, it does not seem right that such sum as may be beyond dispute should not be repaid and the Amendment provides that nine-tenths of such agreed sum should be paid on account within three months of the delivery of the calculations of the taxpayer for E.P.T. liability, usually prepared by his accountants or auditors. Unless there is reasonable cause to reduce the 90 per cent, on account, to some smaller percentage figure, I think we would all agree that it is an undoubted fact that E.P.T. legislation and the accounting to be made under it are very complicated. It may take some time to agree the figures with the Inspector of Taxes. As we know, the Department is terribly overworked.

5.15 p.m.

Moreover, I imagine that the Department itself would be very glad to have some guidance as to when refunds might be made and to what extent. I think it is quite easy to see that, in many cases, a reasonable forecast of the amount due for refund should be made, because any deficiencies between now and the end of E.P.T. will, as a rule, result in reclaims against older payments in earlier periods, and, therefore, the amount of the refund will not be affected. I, therefore, suggest that it is not unreasonable to ask that traders should not be hampered by lack of capital from E.P.T. refunds by being kept an undue length of time waiting to know when repayment will be made, and that it is in the interests both of the Treasury and of the taxpayer, that some reasonable


arrangement should definitely be provided. That is what I have tried to do in framing this Amendment, and I urge the Chancellor to accept it.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): As the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) very rightly said, under the provisions of Clause 36, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue can make payments, if they think fit and the conditions are fulfilled, to traders who are entitled to receive a refund in respect of E.P.T. The hon. Member's point is that these interim refunds will not be made as soon as they otherwise might be, and that the sum paid will not be enough. He, therefore, suggests that, into this Bill, we should write the fraction to be paid and the period of time within which it should be paid. I must ask the House to resist this Amendment, for quite simple reasons. The first is that, as the Chancellor himself said in earlier Debates on this matter, and as I think I indicated on Second Reading, it is the intention of the Inland Revenue authorities to pay these interim sums as early as may be in the new year. We have no desire to hold them back, but we cannot be fixed down to any particular fraction or any particular period of time, because these payments do depend on the trader himself fulfilling certain obligations, and, so long as those obligations are fulfilled, and the Inland Revenue authorities are satisfied that they are being fulfilled, these payments will, in fact, be made. In many cases, they will be made, probably, before the three months has elapsed, and, in some cases, too, the whole amount that may be due, but, where further sums are likely to accrue to the Exchequer, it would be wrong if we paid out E.P.T. sums, when something was still to come in, though the exact amount was, at the time, unknown.
Then, as the hon. Member must know, there is an advisory panel, and we must give it time to carry through any inquiries it may have to make. If a period of three months were set, it might, in some instances, unduly hamper the work of the panel. I hope, therefore, the House will resist the Amendment for the reasons I have indicated. These payments will be made at the earliest possible moment and

will it is hoped be begun early in the new year.

Mr. Bowles: What conditions have to be fulfilled before the Chancellor does give that repayment?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The conditions are that these refunds are made for a definite purpose. They must not go to shareholders or other persons, or in any way be divided out in dividends.

Mr. Bowles: But what positive conditions are there?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The money has to be used for re-equipping or developing the industry. It must be ploughed back into the business, and must not go to shareholders in the shape of dividends, bonus shares or anything of that kind.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 38 — Undertakings and authorities which must be given.)

Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, in page 33, line 41, at end, insert:
 (5) Any person who has given such undertaking may submit proof to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that a sum not less than the net amount of the refund has been expended by him in accordance with his undertaking under this Part of this Act, and on the acceptance of such proof by the Commissioners, which must be given or refused within three months of the submission thereof, the undertaking will be satisfied and no further claim can be made on that person with regard to the net refund under the next two succeeding Sections.
Provided that any such person may from time to time submit proof that expenditure for the above-mentioned objects or any of them has been incurred in respect of a sum less than the amount of the postwar refund, and on acceptance of such proof by the Commissioners the undertaking will be satisfied in respect of this sum.
This is another very complicated Clause, and it does stand in need of clarification. It still leaves taxpayers in doubt whether or not they have fulfilled the required undertaking, as to how the refund is to be expended. The words "or indirectly" are left in the Clause and their very width gives rise to doubts. Moreover, the undertaking, apparently, is not to end after the five years, and taxpayers may be doubtful whether the views of the Treasury and their own views coincide on whether the undertaking has been discharged or not. All that this Amendment, if accepted, would do would be to provide a simple method of submitting proof that the refund has been properly ex-


pended and the undertaking discharged, and, on establishing proof that this has been done, surely the taxpayer ought to receive a final discharge? The proviso in the second half of the Amendment would allow the taxpayer an opportunity of submitting his proof. I think the greatest importance is attached by taxpayers to the removal of uncertainty, and, for the purpose of removing these doubts, I hope, the Chancellor will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the House knows, these refunds are being given to re-equip and develop an industry, and the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) suggests, by the wording of this Amendment, that, where a trader in an industry certifies to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that he has expended the money in that direction, namely, on development or re-equipment, that the Advisory Panel should look no further but that the certificate from the trader himself, which satisfies the Commissioners, should, in itself, be enough. I think that is the sense of the Amendment. If that is what the hon. Gentleman means, I am sorry to say that we cannot accept it.

Sir A. Gridley: May I point out to the Financial Secretary that the person has to submit proof that he has discharged his undertaking, and that it is only on acceptance of such proof by the Commissioners that he may be discharged?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman means that there should be a single transaction—that, once he has satisfied the Commissioners that the money has been spent in the desired direction, no further inquiry should be made at any time, and certainly not by the Advisory Panel. I think that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and, if that is so, we cannot accept it. It may well be that, although 90 out of 100 traders would be only too anxious to comply with the directions given and would actually spend the money on development or re-equipment, there would be nothing to prevent some firms, at a date somewhat later, from readjusting the affairs of the firm or company so as to give back to the share-

holders an equal amount to that which had been received in this way and spent on development or re-equipment. It is quite impossible for the Treasury to accept this Amendment, because it must have power to follow through where necessary, and to see that the directions and powers set forth in the Bill are complied with, not only immediately, but at some later date, should suspicion arise that something is being done that does not comply with the original undertaking. For these reasons, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Bowles: The Financial Secretary, no doubt, understands what happens in financing building. Certain proof is given that the work has gone a certain way, and then 10 per cent. is handed over to the builder. Do we understand that, in this case, the re-equipment to which the hon. Gentleman refers, has to be paid for before any Treasury repayment may be given, or is it done from time to time after the re-equipment? Exactly when is it done?

The Deputy-Speaker: The Financial Secretary can only speak again by leave of the House.

Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. I asked this question on the previous Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, but the hon. Member has made a speech, and, therefore, the answer can only be given with the leave of the House, which, I am sure, will be granted.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I would say this further word. These moneys are paid to the trader or company to whom they are due. The trader undertakes, when the money is paid over to him, that he will use it in certain directions—that is for the development or re-equipment of his business. [Interruption.] Yes, in some instances, he may have expended some of this money earlier; in fact, before 6th April, 1946, the date laid down, in which case it will be assumed, in law, that the money was spent as on that date. The point on which my hon. Friend desired information, however, is the one to which I was replying, namely, when the trader actually receives the money. Normally, he will receive it before he spends it, or, at any rate, some of it. It will be for the advisory panel later to see that the pro-


mise he gave—that that money would be spent in the directions in which it must be spent—has been complied with.

Captain Crookshank: Having done that, what my hon. Friend wants to secure is that there shall be a final discharge. The man is paid the money, he has provided proof and the Commissioners have accepted the proof, having, if necessary, consulted the Advisory Panel, and wants to feel that the matter should now be at an end. Is it not possible that, under this procedure, the matter will not come to an end at all? It appears to me that what my hon. Friend has in mind is that there should be some period of time when the whole thing is concluded. Do I understand the Financial Secretary to say that there should be no such time?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If I might speak again, by leave of the House, may I say I had assumed that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had read the Amendment. This provides that after a period of three months has elapsed no further inquiry shall be instituted or made. That might be quite a reasonable arrangement to make with 80 firms out of 100, but we have got to realise that, human nature being what it is, with some firms all sorts of things might happen after the end of the three months. What may appear to be quite open and above board within the three months might, quite likely, take on a very different complexion with some firms later on. Therefore we must leave to the Inland Revenue and to the advisory panel, the right to decide.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 46. — (Payment of refunds out of Consolidated Fund.)

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 39, leave out lines 39 to 44. 
In Committee, I agreed to accept an Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) which was designed to ensure that what is required under an Excess Profits Tax postwar refund shall not be excluded from the Excess Profits Tax capital, on account of the refund being provided out of the Consolidated Fund. I said that I must look at the wording of the Amendment, and that I might want to make a slight alteration on the Report stage. I have made a slight alteration and the drafting of the Amendment is now

satisfactory from our point of view. I hope it will meet the undertaking which I gave to the hon. Gentleman, and that he will be able to accept it and that the House will accept it. The intention is to carry out in suitable wording the purpose which the hon. Gentleman had in mind when he moved the Amendment on the Committee stage.

Sir A. Gridley: All I need to do is to thank the Chancellor, as I do, very sincerely, for the way in which he has met the point by his redrafting of the Amendment. I think it meets the case I have put up quite adequately and I welcome it and thank him for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 40, line 4, at end, insert:
 (3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of Part II of the Seventh Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939, in computing the amount of the capital employed in a trade or business for the purposes of Excess Profits Tax no deduction shall be made from the price of any asset on the ground that it was acquired wholly or partly out of a sum paid for or on account of a postwar refund and that that sum was, by virtue of this Section, contributed out of the Consolidated Fund.
We want to be clear that we are in order. My proposition was to leave out lines 39 to 44 and, later on, to insert the words in the Amendment which I have just moved. We have left out what is intended to be left out and now we have to put in what it is intended to put in.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 48. — (Interpretation of Part IV.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 42, line 2, at end, insert:
 (4) Where any expenditure has been incurred on or after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-five, in developing or re-equipping a trade or business, any sum used in or towards the recouping of that expenditure shall be deemed for the purposes for this Part of this Act to have been used in developing or re-equipping that trade or business and any undertakings given under this Part of this Act shall have effect accordingly.
This Amendment has been put on the Order Paper by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet points which were raised when we were dealing with this part of the Bill in Committee. We have met hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite completely, except in so far as the date is concerned. The


Amendment makes the date 1945 and I believe that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) is anxious to see the date put some years further back, namely, to 1941. We hope, however, he will not press his Amendment because it would be very difficult to go back to 1941 for a variety of reasons. It is true that the late Sir Kingsley Wood first mentioned this matter in 1941— which is the only reason I can assume for the year 1941 being pressed by the hon. Gentleman. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the matter again in April, 1945, and that appears to be the operative date from which this Amendment to the Clause should apply. I hope, therefore, as we have gone a long way towards meeting the hon. Gentleman, he will drop his Amendment to the proposed Amendment, and let us have ours, and call it a day.

Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, leave out "forty-five," and insert "forty-one."
I am astounded at the statement made by the Financial Secretary and the reason he has given for inserting 1945. When I first read the Amendment of the Chancellor I thought that "1945" must be a mistake and that "1941" was intended. The Financial Secretary has very lightly dismissed what the Chancellor's predecessor said early in April last year. When he was asked by the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) "Would the credits, when repaid, be able to cover such expenditure? "—that is, back expenditure from 1941 onwards—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) said:
 I can give an unqualified answer in the affirmative. If a firm draws on its reserves, or gets an overdraft, in order to carry out development for postwar purposes, the fact that the obligation in connection with the development may be incurred now, before Parliament has decided on the repayment of these credits, will not in any way prejudice the firm concerned." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1945; Vol.. 410, c. 1084.]
I understood the present Chancellor to indicate in a previous Debate that he himself would honour this pledge. There are many concerns which, on the face of what the previous Chancellor said, have incurred capital expenditure during the war on additional equipment and the like

and, not infrequently, at the instigation of Government Departments themselves— otherwise it is possible they might not have done it. What they did count on as they incurred that expenditure on improvements and new equipments—and very often on a special kind to meet the requirements of war—was on being able to recoup themselves with E.P.T. refund, no matter whether they had borrowed the money from their bankers or raised their finance in any other way temporarily. There are others which had finished their re-equipment by the end of 1944 and will have no need to spend any further money on new equipment after the end of that year. Having regard to all these facts, and to the promise of a previous Chancellor, that traders who had spent their money in this way could look for it to be recouped out of E.P.T. refund, I am bitterly disappointed that this is not brought in from 1941 onwards, but merely makes provision from 1945 onwards. I hope the Chancellor will think again about this, because grave disquiet will be caused throughout the country unless my Amendment can be accepted.

Sir John Jarvis: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I ask the Chancellor to reconsider his decision on this matter. I have been working in a depressed area with companies which had no prewar standing but have been doing quite a large amount of work, not paying dividends but building up reserves for a rainy day which might come after the end of the war. We re-reived encouragement from the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and we obtained licences to carry out extensions and improvements—work which has been done out of reserves—and we relied upon the previous Chancellor's promises, other-we would not have spent that money. I urge upon the Chancellor, even if he cannot go the whole way, at all events to meet us to some extent.

Mr. Dalton: May I comment upon the speech of the mover and seconder of the Amendment to my proposed Amendment? The statement made by my predecessor, the pledge that he gave, was in general terms; it contained no dates and it was made with special reference to postwar development. April, 1945, is a convenient date to take for the financial end of the war and prior to that it cannot,


I think, be argued that work has been undertaken in general—there may have been a few exceptional cases but in general it cannot be argued that that was for postwar work. We were all flat-out winning the war at that time, and although there was some beginning of plans for postwar development, I do not think it can be contended that before April, 1945, there had—save in certain very exceptional cases, which cannot be made the basis of a general rule—been genuine postwar expenditure. It is for that reason that it appears to me that April, 1945, is the right date from which to start the concession contemplated in my Amendment.
My picture of the matter is that, as from April, 1945, it may be assumed that work on development is postwar work, and in respect of that refunds may properly be given. Therefore, I do not admit that any pledge has been broken. No pledge was given as to date, and it appears to me that proper and common-sense interpretation of the date is to take April, 1945, as being the financial end of the war. In addition to that, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said earlier, there would be very great practical difficulty in tracing events back to 1941. It would be very difficult to check claims which might be put up that certain expenditure which was incurred, of which no exact particulars were then furnished to the Revenue, was really on postwar work, even in the exceptional cases which I have mentioned already.
This may be illustrated by the case cited on the Committee stage of the Bill, when the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) took the example of the Rhodesian copper industry, which carried out capital works in order to ensure the maximum production of copper during the war for war purposes. That was incurred after 1941, and he was hoping that that might come in for the benefit of the refund. Clearly, that should not do so, for it was war work to produce copper in wartime. Once we extended it as far as that, our refunds would be flying right and left, in respect of all sorts of work done merely with a view of carrying on the war. Therefore, I do not think that the limitation of date I have put in is at all unreasonable, and I must ask the House to reject the hon. Gentleman's Amendment and to accept my Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.— (Classes of Goods in respect of which Purchase Tax is to cease to be chargeable.)

5.45 p.m.

Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, in page 53, line 8, after "ring," insert "electric kettles."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have had a little consultation concerning this very modest Amendment. The reason I ask that this should be put in the Schedule is that the gas ring on which one may boil a kettle of water to make a cup of tea is excluded from Purchase Tax, but if one has an electric kettle that is subject to Purchase Tax. It is the practice of the majority of electrical suppliers, when the housewife has an electric cooker put in the kitchen instead of a gas cooker, or as well as a gas cooker, to provide with the cooker, as part of the regular equipment that goes with it, an electric kettle. The object of this Amendment is to put the electric kettle and the gas ring so far as Purchase Tax is concerned in a position in which they can look each other in the face. Therefore, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can see his way to make this small concession.

Major Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Dalton: It is indeed the case that I have had a word with the hon. Gentleman about this matter. I am, as I have said before, very keen on electrical development, particularly in the form of electric labour saving devices in the home and, therefore, at first sight, I felt sympathetic towards the Amendment. On the other hand it would be difficult, at this stage of our proceedings, to select for this purpose the electric kettle— although I appreciate its utility, desire to see it cheaper, and hope that it will become widely installed in houses. It would be difficult at this stage to accept the Amendment while continuing to impose the Purchase Tax on the simple tin kettle. The tin kettle, even with the Purchase Tax, is cheaper than the electric


kettle, even with the Purchase Tax off. It would be inequitable, I think, to take the tax off the more expensive article. As I told the House, and recalled to the memory of the hon. Gentleman when he spoke to me about this matter, I gave a definite commitment, at an earlier stage, to make a close study—which I am already making, of the incidence of the Purchase Tax on articles of household necessity. It would be very wrong to anticipate my next Budget statement—although that is not very far away—but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am anxious to extend the field in which we can exempt altogether from Purchase Tax articles of household necessity, such as household utensils. It must not be taken that I commit myself to any particular exemption; but I am looking at the matter with every desire to put before the House next April proposals for extending the free field, the anti-tax field, so far as Purchase Tax now operates. If it were then found possible to exclude tin kettles, the road would be clear to give favourable consideration to this proposal, but it would not be right to exempt the electric kettle while continuing the tax upon the tin kettle. In saying that, I am going so far as it is reasonable for me to go in giving a picture of my future intentions. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Sir A. Gridley: What the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said leaves me with some hope that the electric kettle will soon sing in its proper place. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Postwar Refunds in the case of Partnerships, Groups of Companies, etc.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 61, line 27, leave out "on," and insert "to."
This is to correct a printers' error. We hope that, without any argument, the House will' be willing to change the one small word for the other.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

DOCK WORKERS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE I.—(Schemes for ensuring more regular employment and supply of workers.)

5.50 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, leave out:
 (hereafter in this Act referred to as a ' scheme ').
I would ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether for the convenience of the House I might, at the same time, deal with the second Amendment on the Paper in my name as it will make the position more clear, if I cover the two together. This is really a drafting Amendment and arises out of a discussion that took place in Committee when a little flaw was observed in the Bill. We propose therefore to leave out:
 (hereafter in this Act referred to as a ' scheme ') 
and my next Amendment proposes to add at the end of line 9, the words:
'' In this Act, except in Section three thereof the expression ' scheme ' means a scheme made under this Act.
As originally stated, it might cover schemes made under existing arrangements, but a purpose of this Bill is to restrict schemes to the extent provided for in Clause 3. It is not introducing any new principle, but is a drafting Amendment to make the purpose more clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 9, at end, insert:
 In this Act, except in Section three thereof, the expression ' scheme ' means a scheme made under this Act." [Mr. Isaacs.]

Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at end, insert "the fulfilment of."

This is a drafting Amendment for the purpose of making clear the purpose of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, leave out "and their allocation to employers."
It is true that this is a permissive Bill and that when it operates agreement will


already have been reached between employers on the one side and the dock-workers on the other. If, the agreement having been made, one of the parties commits a breach of contract the necessary action will follow. When the Minister converts an agreement into an order it is a direction by the State and no longer bears a permissive character whatever the consequences that follow from it may be. There may be civil redress as before, but even then the power of the State is unaffected. There is no sanction following the inclusion of these words, and therefore, it makes no difference to the effective working of the scheme if these words are omitted.

Mr. Speaker: As there is no seconder, the Amendment falls.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, at end, insert:
 (h) for prescribing the manner in which the practices and customs whether of employers or clock workers can be examined with a view to their improvement, alteration or elimination in the interests of port efficiency.
The object of this new Subsection is to ensure that at the moment when we are decasualising or seeking to decasualise dock labour, we should, at the same time, seek to get rid of those practices which have grown up owing to the casual nature of the labour. I want to make it perfectly plain to hon. Gentlemen opposite that, in moving this Amendment, I have not in mind to sneer at the practices of the trade unions, which have grown up during the course of the past history of this industry. These practices are inevitably the result of the casual nature of the employment of dock workers. In the past, men who were unemployed drifted into the industry, seeking to get a little casual work there, and the whole industry really depended upon a large supply of semi-redundant labour. When any industry depends for its existence on a large supply of semi-redundant labour, two things generally happen: One is that the industry tends to become inefficient, because it can get any amount of cheap labour, and men, in those circumstances, are often cheaper than machines. That is one of the main causes, I think, of the trouble that has arisen in the dock industry. Secondly, trade unions, who represent the men—and no one can blame them—in order to safeguard the interest of their members

adopt all sorts of ingenious devices for spinning out the amount of work available, in order to prevent their men going back to unemployment. That is what has happened in the past.

6 p.m.

It seems to me and my hon. Friends on this side of the House that when there is a situation like that, with all these practices existing, one cannot simply bring along a Bill for decasualising dock labour, superimpose on that situation a financial guarantee to anybody who happens to find himself out of work for a little time, and call that decasualisation. That is merely a financial guarantee for an existing state of affairs. When we decasualise dock labour we want to see that the industry is made efficient at the same time. What we want to aim at in the administration of this Bill is to see that in dock work we have the minimum number of men working with the maximum efficiency under the best possible conditions, and getting the best wages that the industry can afford.

If we are to tackle these industrial conditions, let me say a word as to what they are. There are any number of things going on at the present time in the dock industry which make our ports inefficient, and we cannot afford to have them inefficient. If they are it means that our raw materials will cost us more, and the price at which we can export goods goes up. Let me give an illustration of the manning scales at Millwall Dock. There, when they discharge from ship to truck, eight dockers have to be employed where only four are necessary. That means there are four extra men being employed for whom no useful employment is available. Let me give an example of when goods are being landed by crane. The Stevedores' Union in the Port of London insist on 12 men being used when 10 men could do the job. [An Hon. Member: "How do you know? "] The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly capable of correcting me if I am inaccurate.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Member is making a statement that 12 men are used when only 10 men are necessary. The statement that 12 men are used is capable of being checked. I dare say the hon. Member has checked his facts on that point. I am sure, too, that he has checked his facts,


on the other point he made, that only 10 were necessary. I am inviting him to say what check he made. How does he know that?

Mr. Thorneycroft: All these statements can be checked. Most of them are well known to any Member who has made any inquiries into this industry. If the hon. Member wants to know where I have got my information, I will tell him. I was at the Ministry of War Transport for a short time, and I was particularly interested in this industry. I have seen people on both sides and have gone into the facts with extreme care before giving them.
Let me say, as I have said before, that I do not want any misunderstanding. I am not blaming the Union for the fact that these conditions have grown up. They were an inevitable result of the casual nature of the employment, but we had better face up to the fact that they exist at the present time, because unless we do, we shall not have a sensible decasualisation scheme. Let me give an example of the use of mechanical devices. In the old days one often used a hand truck on the shore, and when doing so 12 men were necessary, but electric scooters are now being used as one of the mechanical aids in port work and only seven men would be required, but still under the trade union practice 12 men have to go and do the job. That means that there are five men being uselessly employed at our docks, and all this cost is continually going on to the exports which are going out of this country. I will give one more example. When unloading ore a grab is used which goes down into the hold and pulls up the ore. That grab could often be worked by two men, but the Union practice is that six men have to be employed. These are some of the manning scales at the present time.

Mr. Keenan: Is the hon. Member aware that because of local conditions local arrangements are made? Local circumstances differ from port to port, and there are working arrangements in respect of determined rates for cargoes and numbers of men employed. Would it not be rather ridiculous to legislate nationally for something which has to be adjusted locally, when circumstances vary from port to port?

Mr. Thornycroft: I am coming to the question of these local arrangements in a moment. Let me, in answer to the hon. Member, say that just because employers and workers have come to an agreement about something in some port, that is not necessarily to say that that agreement is right; it may be wrong. We are not here to represent the workers side or the employers' side. We are here to try to represent the national interest.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: In view of what the hon. Member has just alleged, that a certain number of men are being employed on various jobs, whereas a smaller number could do that job, are we not entitled to have the facts on which he relies in support of his allegation?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think I need deal with that here. I am giving facts, and the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply is capable of looking after himself. I know that some of these things are difficult. [Interruption.] I hope that I am not going to create a row. I am trying to be as non-controversial as possible.
Let me take further examples on the question of transfer. There are rules existing in the unions at the moment which prohibit the transfer of a gang either from one ship to another ship, that is to say, if they finish on one ship they cannot be transferred to the next ship until the next day or the next period they work. There are restrictions on them being transferred from ship to shore—

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Chartered and Other Bodies (Resumption of Elections) Act, 1945.
2.British Settlements Act, 1945.
3.War Damage (Valuation Appeals) Act, 1945.
4. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1945.
5. Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945.


6. Inshore Fishing Industry Act, 1945.
7. Civil Defence (Suspension of Powers) Act, 1945.
8. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Weston-super-Mare) Act, 1945.
9. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Doncaster) Act, 1945.
10. Weaver Navigation Act, 1945.
11. Wadebridge Rural District Council Act, 1945.
12. North Devon Water Board Act, 1945.
13. Mid-Southern Utility Act, 1945.
14. Colne Valley Water Act, 1945.
15. Gloucester Corporation Act, 1945.
16. Reigate Corporation Act, 1945.
17. Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1945.

DOCK WORKERS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT) BILL

Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), resumed.

CLAUSE 1.—(Schemes for ensuring more regular employment and supply of workers.)

Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 14, at end, insert:
 (h) for prescribing the manner in which the practices and customs whether of employers or dock workers can be examined with a view to their improvement, alteration or elimination in the interests of port efficiency.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I was dealing with the question of transfer from one job to another, and I had given certain illustrations, some of them, I think, a little painful, judging by the reception they had, of the difficulties of transferring a gang of men from one job to another. Not only does it apply from ship to shore and ship to ship but, in some docks, there is even a rule against transferring from one hold to another hold.
Lastly, on these practices, there is this very vexed question of overtime. No one wants to suggest that, as a matter of general practice, a large amount of overtime ought to, be worked in any industry, but it is well to remember that the dock industry is rather peculiar. It is not like

a factory where you can lay down your arrangements for production in advance. It is an industry in which, to a certain extent, one is at the mercy of the weather and the time when a ship comes in, and other factors. On occasions, it ought to be possible to work the ship and unload it at other than normal times. There are some docks where overtime is not worked at all. At the Surrey Dock, for instance, even if a ship could be unloaded in an hour, no overtime is worked. In 168 hours of the week, most of the work is taking place in 44 hours. I am not advocating large amounts of overtime, but, if we are to mechanise dock work, if it is to be a mechanised job in the future, obviously some amount of overtime has to be worked.
The hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) made a suggestion that as these arrangements had been come to between the employers and the workers in local ports, they were, in some respects, sacrosanct. I have given my immediate answer to that, and, as I say, I do not think that where employers and workers have agreed, it is necessarily a right thing. What is happening in this industry at the present time is this: If you take, say, a port which mainly imports ore, and a cargo of oranges comes into that port, the dockers go to the employers and get favourable terms for unloading the oranges. The employers say, "Well, after all, we are mainly concerned with ore. What does it matter? We will give them the most favourable terms we can." That story goes around and, at port B, where they import oranges in the main and not ore, the dockers say, "Look at the favourable terms dockers at port A have got. We will raise only six crates of oranges." At this moment I believe, in docks in Bristol and Avonmouth the number of crates you are allowed as a safe lift differs. If a lift is safe in Avonmouth, it is safe in Bristol; there is nothing in the atmosphere which is going to affect it. These are purely artificial conditions, which have been built up over many years.
I think I have said enough to illustrate that these practices do exist. I hope the Minister will neither deny the existence of the practices, nor attempt to justify them as a continuing feature in the industry. He may argue that, for some reason or other, it would be better to exclude the reference to this or that in the Bill. One


can always base an argument on that, but I think it would be a pity if we sought to blind ourselves to the fact that these practices exist. Under the Bill, we are saying to the employers and workers that they must produce a scheme for organisation. We know, as a matter of fact, that that scheme is going to cost the industry something like £2 million a year. That is the cost of this attendance money in war-time. The whole of that is going on to the industry; not on the Government, as in war-time, but on exporting industries and on the raw materials that come through the ports. I should think that when we ask an industry to accept a burden of that kind, it would be right, at the same time, to assure ourselves of the fact that the money is not being wasted. Let us decasualise dock labour, but not under a practice which could, in no conceivable circumstances, be justified, in an industry which was no longer casual. It is for these reasons we have put the Amendment on the Paper. The Bill would still be permissive. Even if the Amendment were accepted, there is no obligation. It merely means that where both sides of the industry have agreed on the subject, they may include machinery for dealing with these restrictive practices.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so rather expeditiously in view of the unfortunate mishap to the Liberal Party a few moments ago, when an Amendment by an hon. Friend had no support. That party turned out in larger numbers when voting for nationalisation on a Motion of Censure.

An Hon. Member: Where is the Conservative Party?

Mr. Baxter: I can only speak for the Liberal Party on this occasion, not for the Conservative Party.
The purpose of the Amendment is one which we discussed in Committee upstairs and on which many enlightening things were said. We presented to ourselves and, through the copies of Hansard, to the nation, the strange situation of the Conservatives on a Committee advocating a national plan—or, shall I say, a national approach—to all these things, and the Minister taking up a strong attitude against it. After all, the Government have intervened in this long distressful story

of the troubles of the dock workers. Whether those troubles are due to the dockers or employers or both, does not matter now. It is a long and distressful story and the Government have taken action by introducing this Bill. But, having done so, the Minister in charge of the Bill has shown a deference to local customs and a recognition of local difficulty, and he has an almost eulogistic reverence for things which go on in one part of the country which are hallowed by tradition. He and his Undersecretary, in discussions upstairs, showed such an indisposition to accept our views, that the Government, once having stepped in, must try to secure as large and unanimous an understanding as possible.

6.30 p.m.

What does the Amendment say?
 For prescribing the manner in which the practices and customs whether of employers or dock workers can be examined.
—that is innocuous enough—
 with a view to their improvement.
That is the first part of the sentence. Then my hon. Friend goes on to the word "alteration." Is the right hon. Gentleman going to say that he is against improvement, that the conditions of bargaining and allocation of labour are so good in these ports that they cannot be altered and should not be improved? Finally we come to the word '' elimination." May I ask the Minister whether there are not customs in these ports that must be eliminated, or are we to preserve them and adopt what hon. Members on the opposite side would say was the Tory argument that the past must be retained and maintained? I urge the party opposite, and especially the right hon. Gentleman to look forward into the future. These are new times, and if the Government are going to justify their intervention in this industry they must carry it through to its logical conclusion.

This is a young Government, and we are anxious that it should not die too young. According to the processes of the law, sentence of death cannot be passed on anything that is a living organism until it reaches a certain age. We must allow the Government time to develop, and then we will deal with them. I urge the Government that if some day we produce a Conservative "Mr. Gollancz," and if the President of the Board of Trade will


give him the paper as did our Coalition Government to the Mr. Gollancz of the opposition side, they will read something like this in a similar Yellow Book. I urge hon. Members opposite to realise what it will look like: "Mr. So and So, or Mrs. So and So, of the Socialist Party, voted against any improvement in the dockworkers' arrangements, against any alteration, against any elimination. People of England, we call upon you to throw this Government out." I do not know whether we shall have by that time an hon. Gentleman like the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) writing for us, but there is always the hon. Member for Oxford to do it.

We are doing our best to try to make this Bill work. We had a performance by the hon. Gentleman the Under-secretary during the Committee stage, of "No, no, Nanette," from the time we first met. Whatever we suggested in the interests of the Government was rejected, and even when we tried to speed up the reports we found that same ultra-conservatism that believes that no custom once hallowed by time ought to be altered. We found that no matter how the Government had committed themselves to a Socialist policy, the trade unions are there to see that it is not carried out. The trade unions were represented in the Committee, and they said at every discussion on the Bill, in effect, that the trade unions, having established customs in various ports, these customs must not be interfered with. I suggest seriously that this Amendment is helpful to the Government, just like my. speech. It will strengthen the Government, and I do ask the right hon. Gentleman for the sake of this Government which we are nursing through its early stages, and for the sake of the dockworkers, to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Keenan: The observations which have been made by the two previous speakers have shown, in my judgment, only a secondhand knowledge of the matter under discussion. I was a little impressed by the plea of the last speaker that we should get away from the old traditions if only because I feel that some of the old traditions to which we are subjected here could with advantage be changed considerably. However, so far as this subject is concerned with changing conditions and with trying to put a

national aspect upon the regulation of dock labour, those who are supporting the Amendment are obviously representing the interest of the employers. I would emphasise that they have had plenty of opportunity during the last couple of generations to do something about this dock work—

Mr. Baxter: Since I was the seconder of the Amendment, I would point out that I have never been approached by any dock employer. I know nothing more about the subject than the vast majority of Members opposite.

Mr. Keenan: I have not suggested that the hon. Members had any financial interest. I am simply saying that their point of view is representative of the employers interests. The position is that, following the war period, decasualisation schemes came into being, one of which was in operation in Merseyside and Clyde-side and the rest in the other ports where there was the National Corporation scheme. There were in all these schemes, and there still are, regulations affecting the general position that have been in operation for a long time. In each of the ports the local joint committees which were attached to the national body have had their own local arrangements, subject to the national joint council of the industry. The mover of the Amendment does not seem to appreciate what difficulties there are within the industry. There are no two ports alike. We get great differences in Liverpool and London. Liverpool is a port where, in the normal way, the cargo is discharged on to the quay, and goes from there mainly by road haulage. Before the war it usually went into store on the dockside. In London, however, I understand that most of the cargoes are discharged and loaded apposite waterways.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the operations in the discharging or loading of ships. Anyone who has visited the various ports must have noticed the differences that exist. Some ports have cranes that can take anything up to ten tons, and some even more. Some of the smaller ports, however, have nothing like this, and the shifting of the cargoes is mostly done by using the ships' gear. Ships of between 2,000 to 3,000 tons cannot deal with their cargoes in the same way as a liner or a vessel of 8,000 to 10,000 tons, which may be using a port


like Liverpool or some other port where there are large cranes available for discharge, and where the loading and unloading does not depend on the ships' own gear. We cannot expect the same gangs of men to be used on the smaller ships which can handle only, say, 18 cwt. to a ton at a time, as those which deal with the larger vessels It is that which determines the number of men operating in the different gangs. There have been and there still are the changes made by the introduction of mechanical devices, such as electrical scoops and the like. The hon. Member seems to suggest these are new things, but these changes have been going on, so far as Liverpool is concerned, for the past 25 years to my knowledge, and the gangs have had to be adjusted to meet every changing situation.
I do not see any necessity for the Amendment; rather do I see that, as circumstances change from port to port, it is better that the present arrangements, which have worked out fairly well, should be continued. They have been determined between employers and employed and the trade union representatives, and they have agreed as to the number of men in the gang and the manner in which they should operate the loading and discharge of ships. I think that hon. Members opposite are afraid that there will be better conditions introduced into the industry than existed before the war. I want to say, as one who has been connected with the industry for 30 years, that in the old days the number of men in the gangs and the quantity of cargoes that they had to handle were arranged under conditions that were nothing like so good as they ought to have been. The economic whip was over the men, and they had to put up with smaller gangs and handle work in a way which they should never have been called upon to do. I know it as one who has had 16 years as an official, and it is with this knowledge that I want to point out that, apart from the mining industry, there is no other industry in the country that has as high a mortality rate and accident rate as the dockers. The weakness of the men in some of the ports has been due to the fact that they have not been able to work under the efficient conditions that they were entitled to have. It was because of that fact that the men were casual workers, and there were too

many of them. If the Amendment is accepted, it will mean the wrecking of all the arrangements that have been made in all the different ports and which have worked quite well during the past. The machinery, as worked between the employers, the employed and the trade unions, has been all right, and it is for this reason that I do not see any necessity for the Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Awbery: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), and I do not feel that I have ever heard a more scathing condemnation of the inefficiency of an industry than I heard fall from his lips. It would have been a splendid speech from that point of view, because of the proof it has offered that those who have been running the industry do not know their own business. Last week in this House we watched the Opposition. like a hawk hovering and watching over a poultry yard, ready to pounce upon its prey after it had devastated the whole of the countryside. Evidently it knocked its head against the ground. This week they have taken a different role. They now want to waste the time of the House. We had this very Amendment before the Committee a fortnight ago and we discussed it for some considerable time. Bringing it again before the House is an attempt to waste valuable and precious time.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I understand it has been ruled by your predecessor that an Amendment which has been accepted by the Chair cannot be described as an Amendment which wastes the time of the House. As I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, this is an Amendment which wastes the time of the House.

Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, I think it is out of Order to say that a particular Amendment should not have been selected, but, as for wasting the time of the House, that is a matter of opinion. I selected this Amendment. If there is any criticism of the choice of Amendment, it should be directed to me. Amendments which are discussed in Committee upstairs are not to be rejected so readily by the Chair as when they have been discussed by a Committee of the


Whole House. A Committee upstairs is only a mirror—a very small mirror —of the House as a whole.

Mr. Awbery: The moving of the Amendment is not a waste of time of the House, but a repetition of the same argument used upstairs appears to me to be wasting precious and valuable time which this House and this country can ill afford.
The hon. Member for Monmouth raised a large number of questions regarding the number of men engaged on various operations in the ports. Whether we agree or disagree with the number of men who shall be engaged on any particular operation, we must agree that the number in a gang has been mutually agreed between the employer and the employee; and if that principle which has been fixed by mutual arrangement is to be changed, it must be changed by mutual arrangement and not by legislation. This Amendment takes away the industrial machine that already exists in the industry for settling these disputes, and I suggest that legislation is no substitute or alternative for a mutual agreement between employers and employees. The hon. Member said the dockers in some places were not prepared to do overtime. I would remind hon. Members that right through the war these men gave away conditions that had been won by a hard struggle from very difficult opponents. They have worked three shifts for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, right throughout the war, and in some ports which were being attacked the position was extremely difficult for those men who carried on through it all. To say now that there are in existence conditions in which men will not work overtime is casting a reflection upon men who have done such wonderful work during the war.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of ore and oranges. If he had worked at a port he would know there is no relationship between ore and oranges, nor between the men who shovel ore or the men who handle oranges. They are different types of men altogether. One gang is called a shovel gang to shovel the ore, and they are quite apart from the other men who handle oranges and case goods. Why the hon. Gentleman should associate ore with oranges I do not know, except perhaps that the two words begin with

the letter "o." The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) put up a strong case against this Amendment when the matter was discussed in Committee. He said he concurred with the Minister's pronouncement that we must in the end leave the industry to work out its own salvation. We on this side of the House say there is machinery already in existence for doing what this Amendment suggests should be done; if we accept the Amendment we shall interfere with the industrial machine, and, instead of improving the machine, we will probably destroy it. I ask the Minister of Labour not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Anthony Nutting: I rise with considerable diffidence to address the House, containing as it does at this moment such a number of experts on this subject, but I heartily associate myself with the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). As I see it, on the opposite side of the House the argument has fallen into two parts. In the first place, it is argued that, while casual labour in the dock industry has been a very bad practice in the past and has led to a good deal of the trouble which existed in the dock industry, there are, however, no other practices in the industry itself which need be remedied, examined or improved in any way. The other argument is that, because there are differences in working conditions between the various ports, there is no case whatever for examining or improving any restrictive practices which may exist in the industry. That argument about differences between the ports was put forward in the case which was advocated in Committee, by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, and by other hon. Members on this side of the House, and was put forward against making the scheme a national scheme. But I fail to see how it can possibly be applied in any reasoning for rejecting this Amendment. I cannot see that there is any connection between the two. Because certain conditions differ between certain ports, why should we not improve, examine or root out any evil practices if they do not lead to the national good?

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman appears not to have heard the speech of the mover of the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment


referred to rules in Avonmouth and somewhere else, and said that what was safe in Avonmouth ought to be safe in the other port he named. My hon. Friend, as I understood his argument, was dealing with that and was pointing out that what is safe in one place might not be safe in another place, where conditions are different.

Mr. Nutting: That is purely a question of safety precautions. There are many other aspects of the industry apart from safety precautions.

Mr. Keenan: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that while it may be a matter of safety, the fact remains that a particular change of operation does determine the number of men in a gang?

Mr. Nutting: That may be so, as far as safety precautions are concerned, but, although I do not know much about it, I do maintain that the question of safety precautions is not the only matter of importance. As to the argument that there are no really bad practices in the industry, why do the Government reject an Amendment which, in the first place, is only permissive, and, in the second place, merely proposes to make it possible in certain events, and should it be proved necessary, to examine whether such practices exist? If there are no such practices, why should anybody be frightened of having an examination?
The position as it exists today is surely very different from the position before the war. Here I would refer to the speech made by my hon. Friend. We have, as we all know, a most terrific national job on hand to get back the prosperity of this country. The dockers' industry can play one of the most effective parts in restoring that prosperity to this country, but if such restrictive practices as my hon. Friend has described continue to exist in the industry, if there is no machinery put in this Bill for rooting out, in the light of an examination, any such practices, and if the labour extravagance, which has gone on in the past and which has not been denied by hon. Members opposite, continues in the future, I fail to see how we can possibly get down to our task, so far as the dockers' industry is concerned, and get back the export trade and the prosperity that we need, without any fear of hold-ups occurring.

Earl Winterton: I think, in view of the two speeches which have been made by hon. Members opposite, it is very desirable that the admirable case which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorney-croft) should be stabilised, because it is obvious from the speeches of those two hon. Gentlemen that neither of them in the least understood what my hon. Friend has said. They were reasonable speeches, but were completely divorced from what my hon. Friend said. They were so busy interrupting when he was speaking, that I am not surprised they did not understand what his speech was about. I, therefore, propose to reiterate what my hon. Friend said. In the first instance, I would say that anybody who listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) —if I may say so without appearing patronising—would pay him a tribute for the obvious sincerity with which he spoke. All of us who know his responsible position in the dockers' world would also pay a tribute to his public career in that connection. The first error made by the hon. Gentleman—and I took his words down—was in suggesting that my hon. Friend was speaking in support of the employers' interests. How could he say that, when my hon. Friend made it abundantly clear that these practices which exist today, and which were possibly necessary in the past, are practices which are not unilateral but bilateral, both on the part of employers and employees?

Mr. Solley: Mr. Solley (Thurrock) rose—

7.0 p.m.

Earl Winterton: No, I am not going to give way. The hon. Gentleman can speak later if he wishes. Those practices were not unilateral but bilateral. The whole of my hon. Friend's argument, which was evidently not fully assimilated or assessed by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, was that in arrangements of that kind there was a real danger —and I commend this to the hon. Gentleman—in all these schemes which will arise when we come to further schemes of nationalisation, of some agreement between the employers and the employed which may be very inimical to the consumer. That is a point of view with which, I should imagine, the hon. Gentleman present representing the Liberal Party would agree. That was the whole point of my hon.


and learned Friend's argument and it was completely misunderstood. It is not true to say that my hon. and learned Friend for one moment took the employers' case. What, in a nutshell, was his case? He admitted, as we all admit on this side of the House, that the dockers had a very raw deal in the past. I will go so far as to say that the way in which they were treated 40 or 50 years ago was a disgrace to the country and to all parties in the country. [Interruption.] May I assure hon. Gentlemen that I shall conclude my speech earlier and it will be easier for them to get to bed if they allow me to continue without interruptions?
The situation then was a disgrace to the whole country, but it is not the situation with which we are faced today. Today all parties, the Government as much as anyone, are anxious to improve the conditions, and they have brought forward proposals which in the main, I think I am right in saying, we on this side agree will carry out that purpose. The hon. Member for Kirkdale was apparently highly indignant because my hon. and learned Friend had suggested that there were variations from port to port which were not necessary and which had perhaps grown up as a result of custom, probably because of troubles between employers and employed and the introduction of special conditions following those troubles. This argument was attacked by the hon. Member who said such variations were an excellent thing in themselves. I do not want to get on to a wider subject, because you, Mr. Speaker, would pro bably call me to Order, but it seemed a poor argument against nationalisation, because the whole effect of nationalisation in this industry, or any other, is to have one uniform scheme and not to make any allowances —

Mr. Keenan: The noble Lord is referring to a scheme and is forgetting that he is dealing with the conditions in the industry, the regulations which govern the industry, which must vary from port to port because of differences in practice. I, at least, am not prepared to support the idea that nationalisation is necessarily standardisation.

Earl Winterton: I must not pursue that argument or I should get into trouble with the Chair, but I should advise the hon. Member to enter into a private discussion

with the Lord President of the Council, because his views and those of the Lord President on nationalisation are not necessarily the same. The hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Awbery) seemed to think it a most appalling offence for any Member, especially of the Opposition —and may I say en passant that Members supporting the Government will learn quite a lot in the next few weeks about how to treat an active Opposition —to avail himself of his rights to discuss a question here in the House even though it has been discussed in Committee. There was no repetition of arguments in this House. The hon. and learned Gentleman put up a good and moderate case for the consideration of the Minister, and because he put it so moderately I hope the Minister will agree with it. Surely here is an admirable opportunity to do something to help a cause which we all have at heart, and that is to try to prevent unnecessary costs, which do not necessarily benefit the men employed by giving them better wages or shorter hours, being imported into the transit to consumers of goods which have been imported into this country, or into the transit between the British manufacturers of goods, employers and employed, and the people abroad who are to purchase those goods.
I am the last person to attempt to give the supporters of the Government a lesson in economics [Laughter] —the hon. Member need not laugh, some of us know quite as much about economics as he does —but I will state an economic truism at which I am sure the Minister will not laugh however much hon. Members behind him may laugh. The truth is that unless we can sell our goods throughout the world in competition with the goods of other countries, and unless we can import goods at a reasonable cost, our economic future is indeed doubtful. All that my hon. and learned Friend said, to sum up his case in a few words, was that it would do no harm to the dockers to look into these variations between ports, these variations which once were necessary but are no longer necessary, and do everything to make the industry efficient.
I would add a further point and try to ram it home. Do hon. Members opposite realise the argument which is being used against industry in this country by people in other countries? They say, "Owing to the old fashioned attitude of the trades


unions, as well as of employers, in England they will not use machines, because each side thinks that if it does there will be some upset to the balance between employers and trade unions." We do not believe that to be true, but the best way to make it look as if it were true is for us always to be suspicious in this House when there is any question of improving machines in the actual, physical sense of that word, or improving the machinery of the conditions of work. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give close attention to the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend, because I hope that he will not put us to the necessity of dividing on this Amendment, but if he does not agree to the Amendment or give us some promise the Opposition will certainly divide.

Mr. Isaacs: I think I had better begin my reply to some of the points in the Debate by saying at once that we cannot accept the Amendment. The hon. Member who moved it sedulously avoided referring to the one governing word on which it turned. But before I come to that, let me deal with some of the points he put in support of his case. He hoped that I should not deny that these practices exist or attempt to justify them. The only thing I am going to do is to deny that they exist in the way in which he suggested. He referred to the fact that in the old days there was redundant labour in and around the docks, and rather made the suggestion—really more than a suggestion, a definite statement —that the unions liked to have redundant labour.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I should not like the right hon. Gentleman to misquote me. I did not suggest that the unions liked redundant labour. If he understood me to say that, he misunderstood me.

Mr. Isaacs: I am sorry if I did misunderstand, but I thought the implication he made was that it was to the advantage of the unions to have a lot of men there, so that a lot of men could have the little bit of work that was going.

Earl Winterton: It enabled the employers to have cheap labour.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, it did, and that is our point. In a matter of this kind the unions do not want to have surplus labour hanging about the docks. Neither do the employers. The hon. Member referred

also to the industrial conditions that operate in the various ports. According to the way he argued the matter, it sounded as if he thought that these were trade union instructions and decisions, but they are port practices. If, as he said, our ports are inefficient, that is as much a reflection upon the management of the ports—in fact, it is more. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member looks at Hansard in the morning I am sure that he will find that he did use the words "Our ports are inefficient," and I am saying that that is as much a reflection upon the management of the ports as upon the workers.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to understand that I am not a bit concerned about making a reflection on the managements of the ports. I think our ports are to some extent inefficient, but I think that both sides are to blame. I refer to both employers and trade unions. I want to have the practices of both sides looked into, to see whether we can make them more efficient in future.

Mr. Isaacs: Very good, Sir. Let us accept the suggestion that both sides have been to blame, and that here an opportunity is given to them to rectify it. I want to point out how the Amendment is not likely to help them. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) made one or two references which I would like to examine. He referred to gangs of men having a change in their machinery or apparatus. He said there were cases where gangs used to have 12 men and now ought to have 10, but they still insisted upon 12. I think if those cases are examined it will be found that when they had 12 men and old apparatus, it was darned hard work for the 12 men, and that when they put in new apparatus and kept the 12 men, it made the task a little less arduous for those men; but, at the same time, it gave the employer a vastly improved production. Improved machinery usually leads to improved production, but too often in the past improved machinery and improved production have meant benefits to the employers and no benefits at all to the workers by way of increased wages, leisure, and safety.
The hon. Member said something about transfer. I do not propose to go fully into that matter, but I understand he


mentioned cases of men refusing to go from one ship to another or from one hold to another. I understand that they are cases where the kind of task has been set and the job has been given, so much to be paid for clearing this job or this task. If the men threw themselves into the job and worked with a will because the job was there and the price was paid, and they got it done an hour earlier, that is no reason why they should automatically switch over to another job, especially as, very often, employers are reluctant to pay overtime for continuing work. I think we should find that in some cases men are not anxious to work overtime when they have done a day's arduous, difficult and dangerous work. I cannot feel very cross about them for saying, "We have done our eight hours, and we have had enough of it for today, so we will call it a day."
The hon. Member also referred to ore and oranges. I will not go into the details of this matter, but there was a point arising out of it. Because it had been agreed at one port that they should lift only so many crates of oranges, the men working at other ports insisted, he said, that they should also have those conditions; but there are several other factors which come into this question. First of all, there is the question of the lifting apparatus in the other ports. Has it the same lifting power as the apparatus in the port where the conditions were first fixed? Secondly, how are the oranges lifted? In nets, on small moving platforms, or in roped bundles? The answer to the question makes all the difference in the world. As I understand it, it is much easier to load a dozen or two crates of oranges on to one of these small platforms and hoist it with chains, than it is to put a rope round a dozen boxes of oranges, with the risk that they will fall out. That is an important factor.
There is one other point. The hon. Member says that the scheme now running has cost the ports £2,000,000 in wartime. That may be so, but the wartime arrangements necessitated that at certain ports, especially on the East Coast, men had to be available to unload ships, but it was not always possible to send the ships to those ports. Nevertheless, you had to keep the labour there ready, at any rate to a greater extent than would have been necessary normally. Secondly, under the convoy system, ships came in in large numbers in-

stead of trickling in three or four a day. To enable the ships to be turned round quickly, there had to be a gang of men capable of turning them round quickly. If the men were not wanted on the day after, because no ships had come in, the scheme provided a maintenance allowance.
Further, the hon. Member said that the industry ought not to be asked to accept the burden. If the industry is not able to produce a scheme, which has to be approved by Parliament, which will not land a burden upon them, it means that they do not know their job. We believe that they do know their job and that they will be able to produce a scheme.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but I did not say that the industry should not be asked to accept the burden. I want the industry to be asked to accept the burden of financing the scheme, but they must do it efficiently so that the money will be well spent.

Mr. Isaacs: I tried to put the words down as the hon. Gentleman said them and I have the words "accept a burden of this kind." If I have once again made a mistake, once again I apologise.
The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) referred to several words, but there was one word that he did not refer to and to which I propose to refer in a moment. Unfortunately, the hon. Member said that he did not know much about dock operation, and I think his speech proved it. He made one particular reference. He spoke about the possible production of a Yellow Book in the future to show the country how Labour Members voted on this matter. A little later, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) made a reference to electric bogies. The hon. Member for Wood Green must have anticipated my hon. Friend, referring to his statement as an "election bogy." That is what it sounded like to me.
Then the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting) made an interesting little reference to the matter. I would like to point out to him that we did not say that there are no problems that need attention. There are problems that need attention. I will explain to the House how it is intended to deal with those problems. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham


(Earl Winterton) made a point which, I think, shows that he must have overlooked one part of the Bill. He referred to the danger of collusion between employers and workers against the consumers. There always is that danger, but in this scheme the danger is clearly avoided. First of all, the scheme must be approved by the Ministry of Labour, whatever kind of Minister they have. Secondly, the scheme must be laid before Parliament. Therefore, Parliament will have a first-class opportunity such as it has never had before, for taking care that industries do not get together to exploit the consumers. I say at once that any such attempt would be most reprehensible, and that all persons ought to set their faces against any attempt by any side of industry to take advantage of the protection given them by Parliament in order to impose prices upon the consumers that the consumers ought not to be asked to pay.
Now let me come to what I think is the real purpose of the Amendment, which says,
 prescribing the manner "—
not spelt m.a.n.n.a. —in which practices should be dealt with. It is no good talking about improvement, alteration or elimination; it is the "manner." All that this Amendment says is that in these schemes we shall set out the manner in which these matters are to be dealt with. It has already been decided that it is possible for docks to have separate schemes. We have no objection, none whatever. In fact, we should like to see schemes making possible some centralisation, especially centralisation of finance. For good or ill, it is now laid down in the Bill, in Clauses that we have now passed, that they may have schemes for separate ports or parts of ports.
If each scheme is to have in it some prescription as to the manner in which ports shall proceed in this matter, we shall have a lovely pickle. It would be far better for the organisation at the centre to deal with this, as I shall show in a moment they are dealing with it, than to have laid down separately in each port the manner in which to deal with each question as it arises. Such a provision would make this Measure a Bill for dealing with disputes rather than a Bill for decasualisation. We do not want one manner of settling a dispute in one area, say the Liverpool

group, who might agree to go to the industrial court, while another group might agree to go to the arbitration tribunal, and still another have an independent arbitrator appointed. That would never get us anywhere. Therefore, we base objection to this mainly on the ground of the fact that it will restrict the schemes to having their manner of dealing with disputes laid down in each separate scheme.
I can, perhaps, take the House a little further than was possible in Committee, to show what the industry is, in fact, doing. I was not in a position, during the Committee stage, to quote the actual terms then being discussed between the workers and the employers on their National Council. I can now quote it in full, and this is the decision that they reached and which has now been endorsed:
 A Joint Committee of the National Joint Council shall be established forthwith with the following terms of reference: to examine the industrial arrangements of the industry, on the basis that there will be permanent schemes of decasualisation, and report; the Committee to be provided with an independent chairman appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service, after consultation with the two sides. Where the independent chairman so agrees, on the instance of either side the National Joint Council shall report a difference to the Minister of Labour and National Service.
This reference means that they have agreed that they will examine immediately all these questions of difference of methods of operation throughout the industry. I am not saying that they are doing it forthwith, but as a part of the general settlement that is being negotiated today, and although, at an appropriate moment on the Third Reading, I may be able to give the House some further information, they are getting on with this job. The introduction of this Clause would mean that we should possibly find ourselves having chaos again, by reason of the complexity and the number of separate schemes, instead of simplification. I, therefore, ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman said he might give us some in formation on Third Reading. I think it might be helpful to the House if he gave it now—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot make a second speech. He may only ask a question.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Division No. 49.]
AYES.
[7.25 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Pitman, I. J.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Astor, Hon. M.
Howard, Hon. A.
Poole, Col. 0. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baldwin, A. E.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Raikes, H. V.


Baxter, A. B.
Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hutchison, Ll.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Birch, LI.-Col. Nigel
Keeling, E. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boothby, R.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Renton, Mai. D.


Bossom, A. C.
Lambert, G.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bower, N.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Major E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, Lt. W. S. (Bucklow)


Butcher, H. W.
Lipson, D. L.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W''ld'n)
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Carson, E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.


Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Teeling, Fit.-Lieut. W.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Touche, G. C.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Marsden, Comdr. A.
Turton, R. H.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.


Drewe, C.
Maude, J. C.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)


Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Molson, A. H. E.
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
York, C.


Gridley, Sir A.
Nicholson, G.
Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Nutting, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'dbridge)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
 Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and


Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Mr. Studholme.




NOES.


Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)
Burden, T. W.
Farthing, W. J.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Burke, W. A.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Foot, M. M.


Allen, A, C. (Bosworth)
Callaghan, James
Foster, W. (Wigan)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Freeman, P. (Newport)


Alpass, J. H.
Chamberlain, R. A.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Champion, A. J.
Gallacher, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Chater, D.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)


Attewell, H. C.
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Gibson, C. W.


Austin, H. L.
Clitherow, R.
Gilzean, A.


Awbery, S. S.
Cluse, W. S.
Gooch, E. G.


Ayles, W. H.
Cobb, F. A.
Goodrich, H. E.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Cocks, F. S.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Bacon, Miss A.
Collick, P.
Grey, C. F.


Baird, Capt. J.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Grierson, E.


Balfour, A.
Cook, T. F.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Barstow, P. G.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)


Barton, C.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Gunter, Capt. R. J.


Battley, J. R.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Guy, W. H.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Corvedale, Viscount
Haire, Fit.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)


Belcher, J. W.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)


Benson, G.
Daggar, G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Beswick, Fit.-Lieut. F.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Hardman, D. R.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Binns, J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Haworth, J.


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Dobbie, W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Boardman, H.
Dodds, N. N.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Bottomley, A. G.
Douglas, F. C. R.
Herbison, Miss M


Bowden, FIg.-Offr. H. W.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hobson, C. R.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Durbin, E. F. M.
Holman, P.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Horabin, T. L.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Edelman, M.
House, G.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hoy, J.


Brown, George (Belper)
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Hughes. Lt. H D. (W'lhampton, W)

The House divided: Ayes no; Noes 248.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Paget, R. T.
Sparks, J. A.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Stamford, W.


Janner, B.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Stokes, R. R.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Pargiter, G. A.
Strauss, G. R.


Keenan, W.
Parker, J.
Swingler, Capt. S.


Kenyon, C.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Kinley, J.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Lang, G.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lavers, S.
Pearson, A.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Perrins, W.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Leslie, J. R.
Poole, Major C. C. (Lichfield)
Thorneycroft, H.


Levy, B. W.
Popplewell, E.
Tiffany, S.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Tolley, L.


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Lindgren, G. S.
Pritt, D. N.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Proctor, W. T.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Longden, F.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Viant, S. P.


Lyne, A. W.
Randall, H. E.
Walkden, E.


McAdam, W
Ranger, J.
Walker, G. H.


McEntee, V. La T.
Reeves, J.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Mack, J. D.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Warbey, W. N.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Rhodes, H.
Watkins, T. E.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Webb, M. (Brad-ford, C.)


McLeavy, F.
Robens, A.
Weitzman, D.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Roberts, G. 0. (Caernarvonshire)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)


Marquand, H. A.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mathers, G.
Royle, C.
Wigg, Col. G. E. C.


Mayhew, Maj. C. P.
Segal, Sqn.-Ldr. S.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Medland, H. M.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Mort, D. L.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Moyle, A.
Skeffington, A. M.
Williamson, T.


Murray, J. D.
Skinnard, F. W.
Willis, E.


Naylor, T. E
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J,


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Yates, V. F.


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Zilliacus, K.


Oldfield, W. H.
Solley, L. J.



Oliver, G. H.
Sorensen, R. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orbach, M.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
 Mr. Collindridge and




 Mr. Simmons.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, leave out Sub section (5).
This Amendment is of considerable importance, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour will be able to accept it or at any rate, to give an assurance that he will consider the matter seriously. If this Subsection is allowed to remain in the Clause, it will bring within the range of the criminal law certain classes of dockers and employers, but certain classes only. Subsection (4) defines an offence and those who are capable of commiting an offence. According to Subsection (1), a scheme may provide for a variety of things, but it need not necessarily include all the things set out in that Subsection. It may include some or all of them, but if it includes two or more, that is to say if the scheme makes a provision
 prohibiting or restricting the employment of dock workers to whom the scheme does not apply and the employment of dock workers

by employers to whom the scheme does not apply,
then an offence will be committed if workers outside the scheme are employed by employers within the scheme, or workers within the scheme are employed by employers without the scheme.
If those two conditions are embodied in the scheme—but only if they are embodied in it—there is the possibility of an offence being committed. A scheme may be drafted and accepted by the Minister without those provisions being included, and in a scheme of that sort, the dockers working under it would not be subject to the criminal law. If those provisions are included, however, another curious result follows. The dockers may still not be subject to the criminal law if they commit a breach, because something else has to be done before it becomes an offence. Subsection (4) states that the scheme may do something more than provide—it may "declare." The result of this is that there may be two schemes, both of them


including the provisions applying to the workers and employers as defined in Subsection (4), but one of them not declaring a breach to be an offence, and the other declaring it to be an offence. The question I want to put to the Minister is, who is to insert the declaration in the scheme? Suppose that a scheme is made without the declaration being put in it; suppose that the declaration is not part and parcel of it when it goes before the Minister, the employers and workers having agreed that the declaration of an offence shall not be included. When the scheme goes before the Minister, he may amend it. Can he include the declaration, and if so, upon what principle does he intend to include it in one scheme and not in another?
What would be the result of this? Various schemes can be applied to the different ports of the country and even to different parts of the same port. The result is that what might be a criminal offence in one part of a port might not be a criminal offence in another part, if different schemes were adopted. It is bad enough to bring the dockers within the range of the criminal law for an offence under this Bill. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says the Bill does not do that, but it does. That is the result if the scheme includes the provisions of Subsection (4) creating the offence. Subsection (5) imposes a penalty of £50 fine or three months imprisonment, or both. Not only would the dockers be brought within the range of the criminal law, but the provision would apply to certain areas without applying to neighbouring areas. This gives a geographical limitation to the criminal law, or alternatively, it gives a discriminatory power to the Minister when he makes an Order.
It is highly important in the interests of the liberty of the dockers themselves that (his penal provision should be omitted from the Bill; no penal provision should be included in a Bill of this sort at all. Why should it not be left, as it always has been, to civil redress? If the Government are to include penal provisions and bring some of these within the range of the criminal law, why do they have to put in a term of imprisonment? Would not a fine be an adequate penalty in these cases? A term of imprisonment should be treated as an alternative to the non-payment of a fine and not as part of the punishment. That would be adequate.

I deplore bringing the dockers within the criminal law, especially in the penal way for which Subsection (4) provides. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept the Amendment, or to say that between now and the Third Reading he will look again at Subsections (4) and (5) and will find a way, if possible, to meet the objection.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am neither a dockworker nor a member of the legal profession, and, therefore, I shall confine myself to a very few remarks. A criminal offence is being created by Subsection (4) of the Clause, and the position is not at all clear to my layman's mind. It is possible, apparently, that an act may be an offence under this Bill in one part of the country and not an offence in another part of the country. It is not very clear precisely what can be made such an offence. It depends upon a declaration to be put into the scheme and it is not clear who is to put in that declaration, or who is to agree to it. Is it to be the leaders of the organised workers and employers? Can the Minister also make this declaration?
Again, to my unlegal mind, we are giving a power to persons who are vaguely specified to create an offence which can be an offence in one part of the country and not in another. Therefore, I support the plea which my hon. Friend has just made, that this matter should be further considered. I do not know whether we can get an explanation of what is meant put before this House, which is supposed to represent, and should represent, the rights of the ordinary individual. We should have a much clearer explanation and a reconsideration of the matter; otherwise we shall be allowing something to creep into this type of Bill to which the general public would never give their approval.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I think that the House and the mover and seconder of the Amendment may admit that I have some right to be heard on this Amendment. The original Clause as it appeared in the Bill on Second Reading seemed to me to be highly objectionable. It seemed to introduce—I think for the first time in the law of this country—a criminal sanction into the question of obedience


to, or neglect of, a provision in a scheme of employment. I raised the matter on Second Reading. I am against this Amendment and I think the Government have met fully and handsomely the criticism which I made on Second Reading. I am entirely satisfied with the Clause as it now stands in that respect, and I express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend for the completeness with which the Clause to which I objected has been re-modelled. I do not know whether the mover and seconder of the Amendment have considered what would happen if they had their way. They do not seem to have stopped to consider it. They do not want Subsection (4).

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I agree that it should have been dealt with.

Mr. Silverman: But it has not been. It cannot be done now because we have passed that Subsection. Therefore, we would be in a very peculiar position if the House were to accept the advice of the hon. Member and the Seconder of the Amendment. They would make things infinitely worse.

Mr. Morris: No.

Mr. Silverman: I think so.

Mr. Morris: rose—

Mr. Silverman: I will give way in a minute if the hon. Member is not satisfied with my argument, but he should let me make it first. The position would be infinitely worse if, having passed Subsection (4), we were now to omit Subsection (5). Subsection (4) now stands, and it has been said that it is not understood what is the offence that has to be considered. What is aimed at in Subsection (4), is an attempt to sabotage the agreed decasualisation scheme. I said in my speech on Second Reading that I saw no objection to that at all, and I had a notion that that was really all that the Government had originally intended.

Mr. Morris: That may be true, but the point that the hon. Member should deal with is not that if is aimed at sabotage, but that it is aimed at sabotage only in part, because it is only if it is declared in the scheme that it is sabotage. If it is not so declared, then, however much the sabotage, it is not touched.

Mr. Silverman: I cannot state the whole of my argument in the same breath and in the same sentence. If I could, it would save a lot of time. If the hon. Gentleman would wait, he would appreciate that I am capable of reading the words on the Paper, and I think I know what they mean. I am saying that the offence aimed at in Subsection (4) is the offence of sabotaging an agreed scheme without which dock labour would remain casual. If there were not to be some such offence as is defined in Subsection (4), the whole purpose of this Measure would be defeated. We can have the decasualisation scheme, have it agreed by the employers and by the workmen, accepted by the Ministry, passed by this House, and then, if we leave every employer and every workman in the country, in spite of that, free to work on the docks, what is the good of all our decasualisation schemes?
It is perfectly right that the offence is defined in Subsection (4); it is quite wrong that it should have gone as wide as it did when the Bill was first presented to the House. Now, it is said that it will apply only in some places and not in others. Well, why not? It may well be that it is not necessary to make that sort of thing an offence in one place and quite necessary to do it in another, and no one wants to make a thing a criminal offence if it is not necessary.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Surely, that is a new departure? The only parallel I can think of is the law on suspected persons in London, and London alone.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member may be right. I am not an expert about the law on suspected persons in London, and I cannot see the parallel at all. It is quite true that this Bill does new things. I have no objection to doing new things. To my mind, it is not to be argued against a thing, that it is new; the question, surely, is whether it is sensible? The aim is, in the first instance, and in the first instance only, to leave the matter to the people concerned in the several areas, or districts, to work out a scheme necessary and suitable for them, and, if they then say so, and think it necessary, but not otherwise, they may, if they like, but are not bound to, make a breach of the scheme in this way an offence. I assume that, when the Minister considers this


scheme, he will have regard, in each particular scheme, whether this provision has been introduced or not. When he thinks it is left out where it ought to be in, he may suggest that it should be put in, and, if he thinks it is put in where it should be reasonably left out, he can suggest to them to leave it out, and, behind it all, rests the authority of the House of Commons, which may look at every particular scheme and omit or insert this Amendment when they consider the scheme, if they think fit. There is nothing wrong with that, surely. If no agreement at all is reached, the Minister himself lays a scheme before the House, and, no doubt, he will consider whether to put this provision in or not.
Having defined that there shall be such an offence, what the hon. Member now wants to do is to leave out the limitation. What is done by Subsection (5) which the hon. Member wants to leave out? Instead of leaving the thing at large, it becomes a statutory offence, created by this Bill and triable only at assizes before a judge and jury— (Interruption). But that is what will be done if we leave out Subsection (5). It will leave the offence merely as a statutory offence, with no limitation of jurisdiction, no limitation of penalty and with other consequences which I will come to in a moment. The hon. Member ought to read the Clause before he advises the House to leave it out. Subsection (5) states:
 (5) Any person who contravenes any provision in relation to which such a declaration is in force shall be guilty of an offence under this Section, and shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine, or to both such imprisonment and a fine.
—with a further limitation after the maximum fine that can be inflicted in the case of any person not being a body corporate. If we leave out that Subsection, instead of having the offence triable only on summary conviction, with maximum penalties laid down by the Act, it will be tried on indictment with much more serious penalties. That, I think, would be a very good reason for not accepting the Amendment, but it does not stop there. Has the hon. Member looked at Clause 3? This states:
 Provided that nothing in the said pro visions shall after the expiration of the said Acts enable criminal proceedings to be brought otherwise than for a contravention of pro-

visions prohibiting or restricting the employment of dock workers except such as may be specified therein.
That is a reference, again, to Subsection (4). Now let us look at the last three lines:
 or authorise the imposition for any such contravention of any penalty not authorised by Subsection (5) of Section one of this Act.
Under that proviso, there cannot be brought any criminal proceedings except those carefully delimited by Subsection (4), and, there again, by any other sort of trial or penalty than that under Subsection (5). If the hon. and learned Member wants to leave out Subsection (5), let him not think that he is doing the dock labourers any good. On the contrary. The hon. Gentleman begins his argument by objecting to the introduction of a new principle of the criminal law, to the creation of a new offence and the infliction of new criminal penalties, and, in order to help that argument forward, recommends to the House a course of procedure which increases the offence, increases the penalty and renders the offenders liable to a much more severe penalty than they would be liable to. So it seems to me, and I thought it right to say so. If I am wrong, no doubt others more learned in the law will point out my error, but it does seem to me to be highly dangerous, even from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, to have Subsection (5) omitted.
I would like to end with what I said in the beginning—that, in its new form, the Clause does everything it ought to do and no more than it ought to do—and I think the end of the little incident which started on Second Reading may be accepted by Members of the Opposition, though none of them are in the House, except a few on the Front Bench, as an example of how well one can succeed with an intelligent and responsible Government if one limits one's opposition to constructive items.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I am bound to say that I wish the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris), when concerned with the liberty of the individual, had approached me, perhaps through the Welsh Parliamentary Party to which I now have the honour to belong, to see whether we could not avoid these divergencies. I am bound to say that this Amendment could not be accepted. I think there was one point raised in the argument of the hon. Gentleman which


had some substance in it, and that point was that, under the Bill as it is, we might have conditions in part of a port which had a penal provision, and a scheme in another part of the port which did not have penal provision. The hon. Gentleman thought that was undesirable, and I rather agree with him. I have always held that the principles of the scheme ought to be laid down upon a national basis. I do not think it would be workable on any other terms, but I will not pursue that because it would be out of order.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says there is no precedent for the wide punitive powers included in the original Bill. Every dock worker at the present time in this country, or a large number of them, is at present working under the provisions of the National Dock Labour Corporation Scheme, under the Emergency Powers Act, and subject to wide penalties for almost any action which they can take almost at any time of the day or night.

8 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I do not think he was present when I made my speech on Second Reading. I was only attempting to make a kind of shorthand reference to the much larger argument I put forward then. The only thing which justifies my intervention now is that so far as dockers of Liverpool and, possibly, Clydeside are concerned, they worked, voluntarily, schemes of their own during the war, without the Essential Works Order being applied to them at all.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I fully accept the explanation of the hon. Gentleman that he was trying to shorten his argument, but I do not think simplicity lent clarity in that particular instance. This matter has been gone into very fully, and as a result of concessions which the right hon. Gentleman is making later, both under this Clause and elsewhere, and so far as the National Dock Labour Corporation schemes are concerned, the offences are limited to that very narrow field of people who are actually trying to break the scheme. I think that is a very great advance on the present position and, in those circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friends below the gangway will not press this Amendment to a Division

Mr. Solley: I rose to my feet a few minutes ago at the same time as my hon. Friend the member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) but unfortunately, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I did not then catch your eye. If I had, I should probably have given expression to some of the principles uttered by my hon. Friend but not with his eloquence and force. Therefore, I do not desire to take up the time of the House in reiterating what he said. However, there are one or two points made by the mover and seconder of this Amendment, which I think could be dealt with to advantage. First, the point that this penal sanction is a new departure in statutory law, because it has a geographical limitation. This is by no means a new departure and I could give many an example to prove my point. For instance, there are offences under the Metropolitan Police Act in the nature of nuisances which are only applicable to a person who is unfortunate enough to commit those offences within the Metropolitan Police area, and which are not criminal offences outside the Metropolitan Police area. In that case, you have a statute which, in fact, defines crimes with a geographical incidence, and we are all aware, if we think about the matter, of the number of public corporations which have the power to make by-laws, which have a geographical limitation and infringement of which are in fac criminal offences. I venture to think that I have established my thesis that this Subsection is not a new departure in legislation.
A second point was made by the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, namely, that it would be sufficient to have a civil redress in the event of a breach of one of these Regulations which we have in mind. In my submission these regulations are of the very essence of the whole scheme. As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said, a breach of such regulations would, in effect, amount to sabotage of the scheme and it is not sufficient, therefore, merely to rely upon a civil redress. Those of us who have had experience of cases where the Factories Acts have been infringed, are too painfully aware that in many cases not merely is a civil remedy not sufficient, but the criminal sanction is not sufficiently harsh. For these two reasons, technical though they may be, in addition to the argument put forward by the hon. Member for


Nelson and Colne, with which I am in entire agreement, I support the Government in opposing this Amendment.

Mr. Clement Davies: The objection to Subsection (5) is two-fold: one, that you are introducing a criminal penalty into a matter which really derives from a scheme which settles the contractual rights between an employer and an employee. That is a new departure. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) referred to the Factory Acts. That is an entirely different matter. That arises under the Statute Law when you make regulations covering what shall be certain conditions within a factory and, very rightly, if anybody breaks those conditions the Statute then provides for penalties. This is a scheme which will settle the rights and the liabilities of the employers and the dockers contractually, and one, therefore, ought to approach a matter of that kind not with any idea of enforcing penalties. I quite agree that one should have regard to Subsection (4) in the first instance.
What one objects to then is that, in allowing Subsection (4) to stand, you get this extraordinary situation, that if perchance a scheme provides for certain matters to be an offence they shall be an offence in one port but not in another. They may be an offence, in part, in a port with regard to certain documents but not an offence in the same port with regard to other documents and I really was surprised to find that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne saw no objection whatever to a man being a criminal in one place but quite a respectable uncriminal person in another. That does not sound to me the right way to look at it. The anomaly of London was very rightly referred to by previous speakers. It is a very awkward anomaly but, under certain circumstances, a man can be regarded in London as having committed an offence which, if he were outside London, it would not be, and it is one against which we rebel. One likes to say that the law is a general law, applying to all of us, whether we are in one part of the country or in another, and that we should all know precisely where we are. A man may be just outside the border of the county of London and not be guilty of anything, but let him step inside a yard, and he is guilty of an

offence without his knowing anything at all about it.
That is the trouble with regard to this proposal. Look at what may happen. As a result of the Minister having made a scheme and having as regards one part of the port not made any declaration at all anybody can then sabotage that scheme and not be guilty of any offence. He makes a scheme with regard to any port and he makes this declaration that it shall be an offence, and that persons offending within that part of the port will be liable to be sent to prison for three years. It is all very well for my hon. Friend to say that there are all kinds of safeguards here, first, that it must be agreed to by the dockers' representatives and by the employers. It is all very well to say that the Minister may see to this, but he may not. He and I have been long enough here to know that very often things of this kind can slip by without anyone noticing them. I do not suppose that much consideration can be given to this between now and the Third Reading. Will not the Minister consider it still further to see whether we cannot get uniformity? We are all agreed that there should be an end to the casualness of labour from which the dockers have suffered, but we are very much afraid of using the criminal law to enforce what may be merely contractual relationships.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): The House has had the advantage of listening to five hon. Gentlemen who are members of the legal profession. Three have been supporting the Government and two have been for the Amendment. I think that the argument has been misconceived, if I may say so, as a layman, who has acquired a mantle of virtue since the last time I was speaking at this Box on this question. Let us look at the thing in a practical way. We desire to decasualise the dock industry.

Mr. C. Davies: All of us.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am glad that the Liberal Party agree with that proposal. Having approved of a scheme the question we have to face is: How are we to protect it? It is not use saying we are in favour of decasualisation, if we leave wide open the doors by which decasualisation can be destroyed. We must have some penalties to apply to the people who


would take us back to the bad old days. What the Members of the Liberal Party are suggesting is that there should be no criminal penalty. If there is no criminal penalty, I then turn to the objections raised on this side of the House that you will have a far worse penalty—an unrestricted penalty. That is an argument between the lawyers on both sides of the House—about which I am not competent to express an opinion.

Mr. Silverman: No one has denied it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: That was my impression, that no one had denied it. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was getting up to deny it.

Mr. C. Davies: I meant to do so, but I forgot.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not want to start another legal argument. We want to decasualise the dock industry, and we want to protect the schemes against active sabotage and organised black legging. We say that we must have this penalty in order to give that protection. The question is raised, that what is an offence in one port would not be an offence in another port. My own view is that wherever there is a decasualisation scheme in any port in this country—and I hope that there will be only one scheme—this penalty shall apply to anybody in any port who seeks to destroy the scheme. That is the line we are taking in this matter. That is the view that will actuate my right hon. Friend when he comes to consider the scheme, or schemes, that may be submitted to him. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman for Montgomery to shake his head.

Mr. C. Davies: If that is what is desired why not put it in the Bill? It is all very well to say that the Bill is left in a vague form, and that we can leave it to the very good intentions of the Minister. The Bill may become law, but Goodness knows, whether the Minister will be there to administer it. If that is the Government's intention then why do they not put it in the Bill?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not appreciated the real circumstances of this scheme and this Bill. The schemes are to

be drafted by the industry and are to be submitted under the terms of this Bill to the Minister. We are leaving it to the industry to put forward their own propositions. We say, "Here is the power that you want to protect your scheme." We are inviting them to put forward these propositions in this way: If they put forward a scheme that is not capable of protection, my right hon. Friend will take the necessary steps and suggest that they must protect their scheme by making the provisions set out in Subsections (4) and (5). We say that the Liberal Amendment is one that will wreck the policy of decasualising the dock labour in this country, and, on behalf of the Government, I have to request the House to reject it.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(Making, variation and revocation of schemes.)

Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, leave out Subsection (2), and insert:
 (2) If at any time before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-six, no scheme is in force for any port or in relation to any class or description of dock workers, the Minister may, on the joint application of such bodies of persons as are mentioned in the last foregoing Subsection, prepare a scheme for the port or in relation to the class or description of workers in question.
'' (3) If at any time on or after the said first day of October no such scheme is in force, the Minister may prepare such a scheme if it appears to him unlikely that a scheme for the port and relating to the class or description of dock workers in question will be prepared under Subsection (1) of this Section within a reasonable time.
I would ask permission to refer, at the same time, to my Amendment, in page 3, line 8, leave out "before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven." During the discussions upstairs there was considerable debate on the question of date. I gave an undertaking that I would definitely put down an Amendment to make a change in the date, and, at the same time, a change in the approach as suggested. The Amendment does both these things. It not only changes the date, but gives some latitude to the Minister and extends the time, should he be satisfied that the industry is, in fact, preparing a scheme. We wanted to avoid the Minister having to state a definite date, when possibly the industry might, within a few more days or weeks, have actually completed a scheme.
I think it would help the House if I read out the position as it would appear after these Amendments are adopted. First, the Dock Labour Corporation's schemes will be preserved intact until 1st July, 1947. They can, of course, be revoked earlier, if a permanent scheme is ready to take their place before that date. No gap can, however, occur assuming that a permanent scheme is introduced by 1st July, 1947. This is provided in Clause 3. Secondly, the War Transport schemes on the Mersey and the Clyde are not statutory and cannot be given statutory force in the Bill. Instead it is provided that at any time when there is danger of one of these schemes breaking down the Minister may replace it by a scheme introduced under a short procedure. This would enable him, if necessary, to convert the existing arrangements into a temporary statutory scheme at short notice thus avoiding any possibility of a gap. This is provided for in Clause 2 (3) and in paragraph (4) of the Schedule.
Thirdly, up to 1st October, 1946, the Minister may prepare a permanent scheme or schemes if the two sides of the industry ask him to do so. Thus if the two sides at an early date reach the conclusion that they cannot themselves agree on a scheme they can ask the Minister to prepare his own scheme. This is provided in the new Clause 2 (2). Fourthly, after 1st October, 1946, the Minister may prepare a scheme if he thinks it is unlikely that a joint scheme will be put up to him within a reasonable time. He will thus have nine months if need be to get his scheme into operation before the existing Corporation's schemes expire in July, 1947. This is provided for in the new Clause 2 (3).
The suggestion has been made that we should have brought this date much earlier in the year, while other sections of the industry were urging that we should retain the date originally fixed. I hope that the compromise suggested, with the change of approach in the Amendment, will meet the convenience of the House and fulfil the undertaking which I gave to the hon. Gentleman upstairs.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for going some way to meet the point which was put in the Committee stage upstairs. The original time in the Bill was Christmas, not of this year but of next year, and in an

industry in which there are as many difficulties and problems as the dock industry, it seemed an unconscionable long time for both sides to go on haggling about it between now and 12 months hence. For my part, I would have much preferred the date of 25th March to be put in. In my view three months is quite long enough to be able to decide whether there is any hope or not of the two parties coming together. But I have tried to spur the Government on so long and so often over the Bill that at this stage I am becoming a little tired, and perhaps am not pressing as much as I should. In those circumstances, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Captain Marsden: The right hon. Gentleman has certainly met us in a small way—a very small way, indeed. I do not know whether arguments from our side or proddings from his own produced that three months change. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate the position properly. These schemes are not starting when this Bill is passed. Most of them, if not all, are in operation, and have been in operation for some years. One cannot imagine that the different schemes which have been worked during the war in every port in the country, either under the national scheme or the Ministry of War Transport scheme, are to be materially altered in the schemes which are to be submitted to the Minister. They go in for every form of control of labour in all the ports, and how the scheme shall be worked; every separate scheme is comprised in a pamphlet which in itself requires a certain amount of study. One cannot think that, directly this Bill is passed, they are all to be changed, that everybody concerned is going to get together and study them again, line by line, and alter the conditions, and by October next submit them to the Minister, who may or may not accept them. I am astorished, in view of what we were told—though I did not believe it—about what the Government could do directly they got into power. What have we got? Housing was to be solved in 14 days; great Measures were to be introduced very quickly. Yet, when we come to this one thing where there is practical work to be done, it is going to take 12 months or more—I am going back to when this matter started—before the schemes themselves can be put before the House. I


do not think the House should be satisfied with October. If the matter were left to a free vote, the House would want a little more energy and ginger put into the method of dealing with this question. If October is to be taken, what happens in August and September? If schemes have to be put forward by 1st October, the first real attempt to get down to it will be made late next summer. Bearing in mind that schemes do exist, which require very little arrangement to bring them in line with this Bill, I think the Minister should knock off another three months, and make the date June, instead of 1st October.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 8, leave out:
before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven." —[Mr. Isaacs.]

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, at end, insert:
 ( ) In this Section references to a port include references to part of a port.
This is a small point, to link up this part of the Bill with the part already passed. There is a difficulty in some ports in saying where the port ends, and where the river begins, or where the canal begins and where the port begins. In order that we may have the power to fix our boundary line, this Amendment is being moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3. —(Continuation of existing schemes.)

Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, leave out from beginning to "enable," in line 4, and insert, "(2) Nothing in the said provisions shall."
This Amendment carries out the undertaking given in Committee that we would examine the Bill with a view to the words:
'' Provided that nothing in the said provisions shall after the expiration of the said Acts …
It was contemplated that this Bill should leave in existence the powers under certain emergency regulations. They would only remain for a short period and I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman opposite that it would be a little cumbersome to keep these words in the Bill to cover a period of two or three

months. To that extent this is merely a drafting point, but it is a point which I thank the hon. Gentleman for having drawn attention to.

Amendment agreed to.

SCHEDULE—(Provisions as to making of orders.)

Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, leave out from "published," to "and," in line 25, and insert:
" (a) in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette, or both, according as the scheme relates to ports in. England, Scotland or both; and
" (b) in such local newspapers, and in such other ways (if any), as appear to the Minister best suited for bringing the notice to the attention of persons concerned."
This Amendment relating to publication was also an undertaking given on the Committee stage. It relates to publication in local newspapers. The principle of the Amendment was accepted before, with the undertaking that we would accept this slight variation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Isaacs: 1 beg to move, in page 6, line 3, leave out from "Act" to the end of line 10.

This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill now be read the Third time."

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Isaacs: The first thing I want to do is to express appreciation to hon. Members who have taken part in discussion upstairs, and here and who have drawn attention to obvious faults in the Bill, and helped us to make it more acceptable, understandable, and, we think, more useful. Many speeches have been made, some of which were controverted by one side or the other, but I thing everyone was animated by a desire to make it a good Bill. I am satisfied that the Bill will be of great value to the industry and, in the long run, to the country. It will enable decasualisation schemes to be brought in with the good will of both sides, in a way that will not be an imposition on the industry or cause an unreasonable cost on the goods.
I think it is rather an interesting point that the Third Reading of this Bill comes


today when both sides of the industry have agreed to recommend to their constituent bodies the acceptance of the recommendation of the Evershed Committee which was made last week. I can now disclose to the House, what will be officially disclosed elsewhere, that the parties reached agreement on practically all points outstanding, and referred the question of wages to this Committee which was set up, not as early as some Members may have wished, but at the appropriate moment when they reached the negotiations. That recommendation gives to the workers an agreement of 19s. a day, an increase of 3s. and, on a full week, of 16s. 6d. a week. At the same time, it carries a substantial improvement in piecework wages.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Isaacs: I will not go further except to say that it is rather appropriate that we should be giving the Bill a Third Reading on a day when the unions and employers have agreed on the matter.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I wish to express the hope that the settlement the Minister referred to will be an augury for the success of this Measure. We have done our best on the various stages of the Bill to fortify it in various directions. I think I may say that, on the whole, it is a better Bill now than when we started upon it. It is not so good as we should like it to be, but it is certainly improved.
I want to say one word on the question of these schemes. In the Bill as it now appears before the House, it is possible for schemes to be put up either by a single port, a group of ports, or all the ports in the country. Any of these three courses is possible, and I cannot be accused of speaking for the employer altogether when I say this—I think we ought to have a national scheme, the employers are by no means agreed whether we ought to have a national scheme or not. I do not think any other scheme is really going to be possible. I think if we try to tackle this problem of decasualisation on a parochial basis all that will happen is that one or two rich ports will have schemes, and the smaller ports will be left out altogether. Then all the difficulties re-

ferred to by hon. Members below the Gangway will arise, and there will be one type of scheme in one port, and another type in another port. I hope very much that the Minister, when he meets the industry, will emphasise the desirability of getting the general principles of a national scheme laid down. Having got the principles of a national scheme laid down, there is no reason why a great deal of local autonomy in the working of the different ports should not be allowed. At the moment, we have had the wage discussions, which have been now happily concluded. We had a meeting of the Committee of the National Joint Council discussing industrial conditions. The next thing is to get on with the decasualisation conditions, and as quickly as possible.
It is very difficult to enter into these discussions in the present atmosphere of uncertainty that exists. A statement has been made that these port authorities and ancillary services are to be brought under national ownership. I think the position there wants clarifying. I think it was Dr. Johnson who said that when a man knows he is going to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is not a matter of nationalisation.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I naturally bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the point I was on was the desirability—having passed the Bill which calls upon the industry to send up schemes—of seeing that both sides of that industry meet at the earliest possible moment, and fully understand the basis on which they were negotiated. I will, therefore, content myself with saying that I hope both sides of the industry will be brought together at an early date to discuss this matter. I hope the Minister in talking with them will emphasise the need of discussing it on a national, rather than a parochial, basis.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Gibson: I do not wish to detain the House long but I think it is due from some of the Members on this side to express to the Minister our appreciation of the efforts which have resulted in this Bill. Speaking as one who has had a connection with one of the unions concerned for more than 30 years,


I am quite sure that the men in the industry will regard the work done by the House on this Bill as of first-class value which will enable them to have a little better existence than they have had during past years. I would probably not have risen but for the fact that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) has referred, two or three times, to the fact that he does not speak for the employers. I could not help reflecting that apparently he does not speak for the Tory Party either, because there has not been here today more than a half a dozen Members on those benches. I feel that if there are any thanks due, they are due to the Minister of Labour and the Government for a good piece of work.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALTERATION OF AREAS)

8.39 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I beg to move,
'' That the Local Government (Boundary Commission) Regulations, 1945, made by the Minister of Health under the Local Government (Boundary Commission) Act, 1945, a copy of which Regulations was presented on 16th November, be approved.
The House will probably recall that the Local Government Boundary Commission Act, 1945, makes provision for the establishment of the Local Boundary Commission charged with very important powers for determining the delimitation of local authorities where that is considered to be desirable. Under Section 1 (3) of the Act, the Minister of Health is empowered, after consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned, to make regulations prescribing general principles for the guidance of the Commissioners. The regulations now before the House set out those general principles in detail, and I hope the House will not consider it necessary for me to go over them this evening. They have been discussed with representatives of local authorities concerned, are generally agreed and, I believe, cover all the points which were in the mind of the late Government when the Act was passed. I believe the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me as Minister of Health has looked at them,

and will probably agree they are, in general, the principles which ought to guide the Commission in these matters. Under Section 3 (10) of the Act, the Commission's procedure is to be prescribed also by regulations made by the Minister of Health. If hon. Members will look at the regulations they will see that the procedure, also, is set out in considerable detail.
I am anxious that the Commission should get to work as early as possible, because very serious work lies before it. Local authorities are, naturally, anxious about their position. They wish to make use of this procedure, which is very much simpler and cheaper than that hitherto available to them, and I am quite convinced that the Commission's work will be invaluable. However, there is one point in which the local authorities are deeply interested —the question of priorities. Very large numbers of questions will fall to be determined and there are some obviously much more pressing than others. Under the Act, the Minister of Health is entitled to lay down certain directions for the Commission as to priorities, but, of course, it is not necessary to do so if the mind of the Commission coincides with that of the Government in this matter. I have been in correspondence with the Commission and, for the purpose of record and in order to make clear to local authorities this matter of priority has not in fact been overlooked, I would like to read the reply I have received from the Commission:
 In reply to your letter of 3rd December, I am directed by the Commission to say that they would propose to give a general priority to questions relating to boundaries of counties or county boroughs (and of any county districts which would be consequentially affected) as distinct from questions solely relating to the status or boundaries of county districts.
Within this general priority the Commission would consider as having a special priority (a) county boroughs which, either in consequence of war damage or for other reasons, have in prospect large schemes of reconstruction involving development outside the existing towns; and (b) cases in which applications to Parliament for alteration of boundaries or status have been made, or have for some time been in contemplation and, but for the war, would in all probability have been already considered.
The Commission think it inadvisable to attempt to lay down any exact order of priority as between these two last-named classes of case.
While these priorities would govern their normal procedure, the Commission would be


prepared, exceptionally, to give early consideration to any other case which appeared to them, by reason of special circumstances, to demand it, provided that the case could be dealt with as part of an ordered review of the other local government areas which might be affected. They would also regard themselves as at liberty to postpone, exceptionally, consideration of any case which appeared not to be really urgent except of course those within the two special priorities indicated above.
I am to add that the Commission have had the advantage of discussing the matter with the representatives of the local government associations, and were glad to find that they concurred in the proposed procedure.
In the light of that communication it would be redundant for me to attempt to give directions to the Commission as to priorities. It is rather late, and I am sure the House is anxious to rise. There are very important principles contained in the regulations which could lead to a fruitful discussion if hon. Members so wished, but it seems to me, in the circumstances, as the whole thing has been generally agreed with those concerned, that the House might agree to the Motion which I now have the honour to move.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Willink: If I, too, am brief tonight it will not, I am sure, be thought, either here or outside, that it is because we in this House consider these regulations to be unimportant. The drafting and submission to Parliament and, in the first place, to this House of these general directions on which this most important Commission is to act was a main feature of the proposals made. If our discussion is brief it is only because—as I think will turn out to be the case—the House finds itself exceedingly well satisfied with the regulations which have been placed before it. But none the less, this is an important stage in a very important matter, and I venture to say it is to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman's Department and of himself that, in spite of the changes and chances of 1945, this matter has proceeded smoothly and swiftly and with the general concurrence of the associations of local authorities. It is satisfactory to find this working out of a wise policy initiated by the Coalition Government, with an Act of Parliament put into law by the intervening Government, and, finally, these regulations submitted by the right hon. Gentleman, all within the space of 10 months. It was anticipated in the Debate on the White Paper and on the Bill when it was before

the House that the framing of these regulations was going to be a difficult and controversial matter. It was said the Debate on the regulations would be very much more important and prolonged than the Debate on the Bill. But the Minister has told us that there have been the consultations expressly provided for by an Amendment to the Bill as originally presented and, for my part, I find the result very satisfactory indeed.
Most satisfactory of all I find the fact that the Minister accepts wholeheartedly this step as the proper one to take with regard to the immediate reform of certain aspects of our local government system, in spite of the fact that it was described by the Lord Privy Seal when introduced as "timid and inadequate," and described by the present Minister of Town and Country Planning in curiously similar words. I think he called it "Poor, timid and inadequate." I always felt, as I gather the right hon. Gentleman feels, that the setting up of this Commission with directions of this kind was a most important and valuable step, likely to result in very great benefit to the whole of our local government system. That view was taken by myself at a time when there was undoubtedly great restiveness and suspicion throughout local authorities, of all political views, as the result of activities of certain right hon. Gentlemen whom I am not going to name. I find, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has also found, the associations of local authorities most helpful and constructive in these matters. It is not that they are unaware of faults and defects in their present set-up. I believe the Commission will find the same attitude when they set about their task, and I would like to say that this awareness of the need for reform, in a good many directions, is shared quite as strongly by those who speak for rural districts—which arc sometimes quite wrongly suggested to be behind-hand in these matters—as by others.
In passing, I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the strength of the Commission, the composition of which he was able to submit to His Majesty for appointment. Of the five members, I have the privilege of knowing well three, and I am certain that the whole-time service of Sir John Maude, who until recently was Secretary of the Ministry of Health, will give very great


confidence through the local government world. Not only was he head of the department primarily concerned, but his devotion to and knowledge of local government in this country are, I am sure, unsurpassed. Secondly, I feel that the appointment of Sir George Etherton to this Commission is a most wise step. A gentleman who has been town clerk of two great cities, and clerk of a most important county, the county of Lancashire, is another example of a first-class appointment. So far as the chairman, Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, is concerned, I am certain that no better chairman could have been found. I have not the privilege of knowing the other two members but I have no reason to doubt that their appointment is equally suitable.
The regulations fall under two heads, the general principles and the procedural regulations. I would like to say one or two words only under each of those heads. In the first place, with regard to the general principles, there has been some criticism that they are vague and indefinite. I would not for one moment join in that criticism I think it is essential not to be doctrinaire or rigid in drawing regulations for the guidance of a Commission of this kind. The circumstances of this country of ours are infinitely varied, and if there had been any attempt to make the regulations rigid, basing the size of local government areas on population in any strict manner, I feel sure that would have been harmful. In particular, I would mention, too, that I think the provision that there should be no prejudice one way or the other as to the blending together of urban and rural districts is very wise indeed, and the facts ought to be looked at in each particular case. I would also commend in the second Regulation, the careful phrasing that sets out in alphabetical order and not in order of priority something like 10 different factors which are among those to be considered by the Commission. I read this morning that it was to be hoped that Parliament would give a clear indication of the order in which these factors should be rated and valued. I do not believe that is possible. The rating of the various factors will vary from place to place, and I am glad the regulations have been drafted in this way.
Turning to the procedural provisions, it is worth calling attention to one in-

novation which I am sure will result in the saving of expense and of time, namely, the provision that the Commission, if they like at any of their inquiries, can say to all the parties, '' You are each of you to address us in the first place before we enter on the hearing of evidence so that we may discover what are really the points at issue, and frame the issues and then restrict the evidence to those points."
There were in my mind two questions which I wanted to ask, the first of which has been answered by the right hon. Gentleman, and that was the question whether he was going to give any directions as to priorities under Section 3 of the Act. The letter from the War Damage Commission which he read is, I think, a very wise letter and a first instalment of what I am sure will be very valuable work, but I would be glad if we might have some information on another most important point. Hon. Members will be aware that of this Commission of five, only one is a whole time Commissioner. I think it is right and wise that the bulk of the Commission should be part time and should not be wholly devoted to this task, but should bring the wider vision which may result from carrying on some other valuable occupation. But the consequence of that is that it is most important that this Commission should be adequately provided with staff, and the staffing of this Commission in these days is not an easy matter, I imagine. Anyone conducting an inquiry into the areas of county boroughs or counties needs the assistance of a number of people with experience in finance, public health and education. He will have to gather opinions, and expert opinions, from many quarters, and I think the Commission will need a very high level staff with which I fancy they may well be finding it difficult to provide themselves. They will not be able to get on with their work effectively or to do it in the time in which we want to see it done, unless they have an adequate staff. I indicated that I would be brief, and I hope my own feeling that these regulations are satisfactory is shared generally by the House at large. I conclude by wishing this Commission well in their most important task.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Medland: I have listened with very great interest to the


Minister of Health, but unfortunately I was unable to follow very closely the letter which he read with regard to the Commission. I did understand that the main point of the letter was that the first priority will be given to the relations between county boroughs and county councils. If that is so, I would like to ask him whether any further intimation has been given, because a large number of county boroughs require a general survey of their position in relation to the county councils, but more particularly does this apply to the towns which have been very badly devastated and blitzed as the result of enemy action. I would like to obtain from the Minister some sort of promise that blitzed and devastated towns will receive special and very early consideration. If that can be done, a great weight will be lifted from localities such as my own where it is absolutely essential before we can go on with our town and country planning—and, if I may say so, I think this Bill arose from the discussion of the Town and Country Planning Bill—that we should know whether we are going to have very early consideration.
The other point I would like to make is that it ought to be made very clear to us that Government Departments will give evidence before the Commission. A local authority which is asking for a revision of its boundaries has to revise its educational programme, its public health programme, its social services programme, so that it may know beforehand whether the views it is expressing in its proposals for replanning the area meet with general Government approval, and whether the Commission will be in a position to co-ordinate all its activities. Before I sit down I would like to say how grateful we in the devastated areas are to the Minister for bringing forward these directions. We have all had our discussions with the Municipal Corporations Association and with our local officers, and we are assured by them that these directions have been well and carefully devised and will meet the position and be the first step towards a real consideration of future local government areas.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I can speak again only with the consent of the House. I would say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman that I have already given consideration to the

question of staffing and entirely agree with him. I have discussed it with the Chairman of the Commission, and we are agreed that he must get appropriate staff for this very important work. We all understand how difficult it will be to recruit them just now, but we shall do our best. We do not want the work of the Commission to be scamped in any way by the absence of sufficient high-level staff. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for the Drake division (Mr. Medland) I did read the reply to the question which he put, because I thought the House would be interested in it, and if it is suitable I will read it again —not all the letter, but just that passage. The Commission say:
 County boroughs which either in consequence of war damage or for other reasons have in prospect large. schemes of reconstruction and involving development outside the existing towns, and cases in which applications to Parliament for alteration to boundaries or status have been made or have for some time been in contemplation and but for the war would in all probability have been already considered.
Those are the two priorities which the Commission will consider. With regard to the third question, I am not certain about the locus of the Commission in that matter. Local authorities do not always want Government Departments to give evidence. However, I will consider it.

Mr. Sparks: May I ask whether the general principles in these Statutory Rules and Orders will apply to London and the Greater London area?

Mr. Bevan: The whole area.

Mr. Willink: Will not the position be that all these regulations will apply to the whole of England and Wales except the Administrative County of London?

Mr. Bevan: There is a special Commission for the London area.

Mr. Sparks: And that would include Greater London?

Mr. Bevan: No, the special Commission is for the London area, but this applies to the whole of England and Wales.

Resolved:
 That the Local Government (Boundary Commission) Regulations, 1945, made by the Minister of Health under the Local Government (Boundary Commission) Act, 1945, a copy of which Regulations was presented on 16th November, be approved.

EX-POLICE CONSTABLE, IPSWICH (DISMISSAL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —[Mr. Mathers.]

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to raise the case of ex-constable. Allen Perrins, and I am certain that those who hear it will agree that it is an amazing story. Before doing so, however, I must apologise to the Minister for the short notice that I have given him. I was under the misunderstanding that when the book was signed that automatically carried the notice to the Minister. In raising this matter, I must once again refer to the case of ex-Inspector John Syme. He fought for 20 years to get an injustice rectified, and after he had spent 20 years in fighting and battling, when his life was broken and destroyed, the Home Office at last had to admit the terrible injustice that had been done to him and tried to make him some recompense for the neglect. It is one of the most amazing cases. Many of us have read Dickens' works in our early years, and maybe can remember "Bleak House" and the terrible story of the man from Shropshire, and all that he had to suffer battling against the Court of Chancery. When we read it we could scarcely believe that it was true that a man could go through such a terrible time in trying to get open recognition of what everybody recognised to be a just cause. The Court of Chancery is nothing to the Home Office. If somebody makes a decision at the Home Office, it is the nearest thing to impossible to get anybody to alter it, even when everybody recognises that an injustice has been done.
There is no doubt that this ex-constable was of good character. Never was a charge of any kind made against him. He had a fine character, and was a fine up standing man. There was never anything against his personal character, but the Chief Constable, at a particular moment, accused him of the theft of a bicycle pump and the unlawful possession of Government petrol. Those were the two charges. The Chief Constable then offered him a document to sign, according to the Regulations. The document was framed in such a way that if the ex-constable signed it and said "Yes," he would have admitted his guilt;

and if he said "No," he would have been telling a lie. The document said he had been in possession of petrol and of a bicycle pump. If he had said "Yes" he would have admitted the theft of a bicycle pump, and if he had said "No" he would have admitted having the petrol, although not the unlawful possession. He at once said, "I will not sign the document until I have seen a lawyer." The Chief Constable takes him before the Watch Committee. We are now told that it was on the question of discipline that he was dismissed. He appealed for an inquiry, and there was an inquiry, but only on the question of discipline. Nothing is ever done about the charges of theft and unlawful possession.
I raised the matter once before in this House, but because the man comes from Ipswich, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) made an intervention in which he said that I had raised the matter without consulting him. When I drew attention to the fact that I had discussed the matter with him, the hon. Member admitted it. It will be seen in Hansard, if anyone cares to read it, that the hon. Member did admit that I mentioned the matter to him but that he had forgotten it. When the new phase of the matter was brought to my attention, I went to the hon. Member for Ipswich and asked whether he was prepared to take the matter up with me, or by himself, but he said he was not interested in it because he thought that no injustice had been done. I mention these points in case the hon. Member should make an intervention again.
For four years this ex-constable has been labouring to get that to which he is entitled and to which any lawyer would tell the Home Office he is entitled, a public open trial, on the charges of being in unlawful possession and theft. He has been battling for four years, and he cannot get justice from the Home Office. A few weeks ago he attended a social function in his own town. His wife was there. Two or three girls were standing talking. One girl points him out and, in the hearing of the ex-constable, says, "What's that man doing here? He was put out of the police for being a thief. I raised this matter in the House, and asked the Home Secretary whether this man could get no consideration or justice. The Home Secretary makes the appalling answer:


If an unjustifiable accusation is made against this man, he has his own remedies." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 569.]
The Chief Constable made an accusation of theft against this man. Four years later, he is pointed out as a thief, and the Home Secretary says that this man "has his own remedy" against being pointed out as a thief at a social function in his own town. The Home Office absolutely refuses to give him the justice he demands. When the matter was raised before in the House, the peculiar situation arose that the then Under-Secretary for Home Affairs was trying, by every means, to evade the real issue and cover up the question.

Mr. Stokes: What date was this?

Mr. Gallacher: It was raised before on 14th March, 1944. When the Under-secretary was putting his case we got the following:
Mr. Benson (Chesterfield): On that point, may I ask whether a Watch Committee is competent to try a criminal charge? "—[OFFICIAL RETORT, 29th March, 1944; Vol. 398, c. 1469.]
The man is taken before the Watch Committee on what is presumably a question of discipline. The Under-Secretary said:
 If I may, I will say one word about that when I have finished this part of my speech.
Later on he said:
 Now I will come to the point made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield; where a criminal offence is involved, should the Watch Committee institute criminal proceedings before proceeding to treat the matter as an offence against discipline? I think the answer to that question is one on which it is difficult to lay down hard-and-fast rules." — [Official Report, 29th March, 1944; Vol. 398, c. 1470.]
He then goes on to suggest that the offence of unlawful possession is not a serious one. As a matter of fact, I have been fold since that unlawful possession is nothing, but I have here in my pocket a letter from the War Office about a lad who came here after being a prisoner of war. I tried to get the War Office to do something for him. He was imprisoned for three months for unlawful possession—no question of theft, but just unlawful possession of rationed goods. The letter from the War Office tells me that it is a civil offence and they can do nothing about it. Unlawful possession is a very serious matter. This was particularly so during the war

when it was a question of petrol, and merchant seamen were risking their lives to bring petrol into the country. Anybody found in unlawful possession of petrol was heavily punished. In this case the man is charged with stealing a bicycle pump and being in unlawful possession of petrol. What happens? The Under-Secretary brings in that careful dodge by saying:
 Where a criminal offence is involved, should the Watch Committee institute criminal proceedings before proceeding to treat the matter as an offence against discipline? I think the answer to that question is one on which it is difficult to lay down hard-and-fast rules.
Before we get to that, here is what the Under-Secretary had to say:
 The Chief Constable, under the Section t have just read, remitted the case to the Watch committee, before whom Perrins appeared on 24th October, 1941, assisted by a solicitor. He submitted that the Watch committee had no jurisdiction to hear the charge, since it amounted to an offence against the criminal law and was a matter for a court. The committee overruled this submission. The constable and his solicitor then intimated their intention of taking no further part of the proceedings, and withdrew from the hearing. The Watch Committee then proceeded in accordance with powers which are vested in them by the regulations, to hear the charge in his absence. The charge of stealing a bicycle pump was dismissed.

It being a quarter past Nine 0'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Captain Blenkinsop.]

Mr. Gallacher: Has any legal man ever heard of a criminal charge being taken before a watch committee and the watch committee solemnly deciding that the charge is proven or not proven? I always understood that, according to the law of this country, if a criminal charge is made against anyone, the public court is the place in which to try it, and either to find the man guilty or to give him the opportunity of proving his innocence. Here we have a watch committee deciding on a question of theft. Listen to this:
 The charge of stealing a bicycle pump was dismissed. The Watch Committee did not find that charge proved… The second charge, that of being in unlawful possession of Government petrol, was found proved by the Watch Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1944; Vol. 398, c. 1467.]
Did hon. Members ever hear anything like it? Is anybody prepared to justify that? Never in the history of British jurisdiction was there anything like it.

Mr. Stokes: I should have thought, lots of times.

Mr. Gallacher: There is a man's life at stake in this. For 20 years I was with John Syme in all parts of the country, agitating with him, and trying to get justice for him. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean); the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), and other hon. Members, tried time and again during those 20 years to get justice for him. John Syme was a fine upstanding man, one of the kindest, most generous and most honest men one could meet. After 20 years he was a broken man; his family life was ruined, and his wife was bearing a burden of suffering along with him during all those years. Everybody admitted that an injustice had been done, but the Home Office would not face the facts and make an admission of it. And in this case which I am now raising, nobody will tell me that a watch committee in any part of the country has the right to constitute itself judge and jury and decide on cases of this sort. This is what we were told:
 The second charge, that of being in unlawful possession of Government petrol, was found proved by the Watch Committee, that is, the properly constituted, democratically elected, disciplinary authority." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1944; Vol. 398, c. 1467.]
The Watch Committee has power to deal with questions of discipline. If a constable commits an action of indiscipline and it is taken before a Watch Committee, the Watch Committee has power to deal with it, but never has any Watch Committee had such powers that it could hear a charge of theft. When an appeal was made for an inquiry, an inquiry was instituted by the Home Office, but the inquiry actually considered the question from the point of view of the Watch Committee and discipline, and did not deal in any way with the charge of theft and the charge of unlawful possession made against this man. It was said that the Watch Committee decided that the case of theft was not proved, but the case of unlawful possession was proved. But the man was able to show—and the documents are there—that the petrol which he obtained was obtained from an ordinary garage and that the ordinary coupons were handed over. Because there was a certain colour in the petrol similar to the colour of Government petrol—which was proved by the man to have been caused

by the substance he was using for saving the petrol—he was accused of being in unlawful possession of it. There were statements from the garage man who supplied the petrol that it was obtained in the ordinary way and that the ordinary coupons were given for it.
Never at any time, from the beginning to the present time, has there been the slightest attempt to have a charge properly brought against him or an opportunity given to him to refute the charges in open court. This ex-policeman has not asked for reinstatement or any special consideration. He says that charges have been made deliberately against him by the Chief Constable—of theft and of being in unlawful possession of Government petrol, both very serious criminal charges. He says that he is entitled to the ordinary course of the law and that he ought to be taken into a court. The Chief Constable, and the Home Office with him, must make good these charges or give him an opportunity of disproving them. If they are not prepared to take him into court—and we are always told that every Britisher has that right under the law, to have charges made against him proved, or to be given an opportunity to defend himself or to clear his name—on a charge of theft or of unlawful possession, I ask that the Chief Constable and the Home Office should make a public declaration that the charges against him have no foundation whatever in fact and should be withdrawn and his character exonerated.
Is that too much to ask? Is it desirable that a man should have charges levelled against him and no attempt be made to carry those charges, through the proper channels, to a conclusion in one way or another, and that years afterwards he should be pointed out, as this man was pointed out a short time ago, and confronted as a thief? The Home Office says that if he is branded as a thief by a girl at a dance, he should sue her and take the matter into court; he should defend his character after the Home Office and the Chief Constable have put a brand on his character. I appeal to the Minister not to play about with the question of the Watch Committee and the inquiry which was only concerned with the question of discipline. Here is a case where a charge is made against an upright man, with nothing


whatever against his character previously. Once the charge is made, let the Home Office give him the opportunity of a trial in a public court where he could clear his character or, if not, let the Home Office and the Chief Constable make an open, public declaration that the charges were unfounded and that there was nothing whatever against the character of this man. Do justice before it is too late. It was too late when justice was done in the case of ex-Inspector John Syme. I hope that it will not be too late before justice is done for ex-Constable Perrins.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: I came in to listen to the Debate tonight, and not necessarily intending to speak, but in view of the challenge which my hon. Friend has thrown out, I feel bound to say that he had not warned me that he was raising the matter tonight any more than he warned me on the previous occasion.

Mr. Gallacher: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Stokes: I will in a minute or two. On the previous occasion my hon. Friend warned me, and on that occasion it was 12 months before he took the matter up. On this occasion, about five weeks ago, he gave me further notice. I told him I was going to look further into the matter.

Mr. Gallacher: Was it not the case that when I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). he gave me to understand that he was not interested in the matter? Is it not also the case that at Question Time in the House when my hon. Friend was present, I intimated that I would raise the matter on the Adjournment, and that it has been on the notice Paper for several weeks? What does my hon. Friend want?

Mr. Stokes: It is not the same thing. A Member expects, when a matter concerns his constituency, especially when he is hot an irregular attender at the House, that he would at least have his attention called to it. It is not the case that I was not interested; it is the case that I heard the hon. Member say at Question Time that he would raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, but I have heard at least 200 people say that who never raised anything at all, so that it does not follow that, when one says that, one intends to do anything. I do not

want to stand in the way of justice to one of my constituents or of the argument which the hon. Member has raised with the Minister.
What I wish to make quite clear to everybody, including my own constituents, is that, immediately I learned that this matter was to be raised some five weeks ago, I attended a meeting, held at my request in my constituency, with the ex-police constable in question, when I found precise confirmation of my previous experience when raising matters of this kind. I expressed my satisfaction that, so far as the law was concerned, the officer in question had had everything he could expect under the law. I read out to him and to the committee what had happened when the Under-Secretary to the Home Office replied on that occasion, and I said that, if he would furnish me with a reply, other than that the law is bad and ought to be changed, I should be very glad to raise the matter in the House of Commons again. I only wish to say this tonight. I have received no communication whatever either from the person concerned or his lawyer.

Earl Winterton: May I ask the Minister if he will deal with a very substantial point which has been put by the hon. Gentleman opposite? Has a Watch Committee power, by itself, to deal with an indictable offence? That is to say, if a charge is brought against a police constable which is obviously an indictable offence, according to the evidence produced by the hon. Member opposite, can the Watch Committee say, "We are not concerned with the view that the court may take; we are the body which will deal with it"? The second question is this—If this man was suspected of a criminal practice, because, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that is what he was charged with, why was he not tried in a court of law? That is the question which I hope will be answered.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I want to say a very few words which co-incide, to some extent, with what the noble Lord has just said. If a person is charged with a criminal offence, not even an indictable offence, the case must be tried in the ordinary course of criminal jurisdiction, and the crime must be proved, and any party which sets out to prove the commission of such offences


should prove it to the same absolute strictness as with a charge on an indictment. If it is the law of this country, as it may well be, that a Watch Committee can determine, as a matter of discipline, something which is, in fact, a criminal offence, two things must follow. The first is that it is a very bad law; the second is that the Watch Committee should realise, if faced with a thing like that, that it is doing something about as serious, anxious, and undesirable as it might well do, and, if it is anything like the ordinary competent Watch Committee —and I am not saying that they are incompetent—it is about as unsuited for the trial of a charge of a criminal offence as any body so constituted. It is a very difficult task, a judicial task, and a Watch Committee is not intended for that sort of thing at all.
One other thing I would like to mention is this: In some of the quotations from earlier discussions read by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) it was mentioned that the Home Secretary said that people treated like this had, after all, their remedies. I hope he was implying that they had a remedy less costly, less utterly miserable, and less like lasting two decades than the remedy apparently open to ex-Inspector John Syme. Let us look at the only possible remedy, which, so far as I know, the Home Secretary could be thinking of. If you are, on the one hand, accused in the broad sense of the word of a criminal offence and, at the same time, not brought before a jury where you can defend yourself because, apparently, the evidence is too slight for the jury but good enough for the Watch Committee; if you are left, on the one hand, not accused in a way you can answer and, on the other hand, accused quite sufficiently to damn you in the eyes of the general public, what is your remedy? If you go to an ordinary common law counsel—and there are such people even in this House—and ask, "What is my remedy? "the answer is, "You can bring a libel action." You then ask, "What will it cost?" and the answer will be," Anything from £150 to £500."
When, having overcome that obstacle, you ask, "What are my prospects of success? "you will then be told," If you bring a charge against the chief con-

stable, or whoever it is who has committed himself to this action against you of criminal offence, if that chief constable has any wisdom, he will not put in a plea of what is called justification—that is to say the truth of the charge on the record—so that you will never get your character cleared in that respect, but he will put on the record a plea of privilege which is, ' I am a chief constable acting in pursuance of my duty.' Therefore, it will not go to the jury and will be thrown out by the judge on the ground that you have not proved what is called malice. Malice, like most other laws of libel, does not mean what it says; it means some corrupt or improper motive." So the Home Secretary may say, "You have a remedy," and if you have a few hundred pounds you may start seeing whether you have or not, and your remedy will be that the case will be dismissed at the end of your evidence before the defendant's evidence is ever called, unless you can show that the defendant was moved by some corrupt or improper motive. If you ask whether it is not corrupt or improper to be as stupid or obstinate or as lacking in a fair sense of justice as to make a charge, on the one hand, and not to take it to court on the other, and leave it like that, I do not say certainly, but almost certainly the answer will be that the judge will rule, if you do not prove more than that, that it is not enough, and you show stupid incompetence and lack of realisation of the true issues involved. However, that is not improper motive, and it is not true to say that the man has any redress.

9.33 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) who opened this discussion will, I am sure, not complain if I can only deal with this matter in a very cursory way because it is not long ago we were informed that he was to raise this matter on the Adjournment, and therefore it has been necessary to ascertain precisely the case which was likely to be stated. Let me say at the outset that in this case there is no question at all of the police constable or the ex-police constable in question ever being charged with theft. He was charged with being in unlawful possession of Service petrol; that was the issue, and the only issue, relating to petrol and no charge of theft of any kind was made.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Member excuse me? The Under-Secretary stated, as I have read out, that the Watch Committee found the charge of theft not proven.

Mr. Oliver: I can only conclude that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the bicycle pump. This is not a serious matter. The serious matter relates to being in unlawful possession of Service petrol. This ex-constable was charged with a breach of discipline under the Disciplinary Code of the Police Act, 1919, Section 4. The charge was: That he had been guilty of conduct likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the force, in that, on 30th September, 1941, he was found to be in unlawful possession of a quantity of Service petrol at his home and also at a lock-up garage in a road stated—

Earl Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman answer this specific question? There is obviously a conflict of evidence. The hon. Gentleman opposite says that this man was charged originally with the theft of a bicycle pump and found not guilty. Will he deal with that part of the case? Why was the Watch Committee competent to deal with a criminal charge?

Mr. Oliver: If the Noble Lord will permit me to make my speech, I will deal with that. The important matter relates to unlawful possession. Under the Code, to which I have made reference, these words appear—

Mr. Paget: Surely, being in unlawful possession of Government petrol is a criminal offence?

Mr. Oliver: I am not denying that it is a criminal offence. I merely say that the theft of petrol was not the issue; it was the theft of a bicycle pump and being in unlawful possession of Service petrol. Under the Disciplinary Code, it is competent for the Watch Committee —and I now come to the Noble Lord's point—to consider these matters where the conduct of the constable was such as was likely—to quote the words of Section 1 of the Disciplinary Code—to be "discreditable conduct." That is to say:
' If he "—
that is the police constable—
 acts in a disorderly manner or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit on the reputation of the force or on the Police Service.

That was the matter on which the issues were considered. This matter was referred to the Watch Committee by the Chief Constable, and when the constable, with the aid of his solicitor, appeared before the Watch Committee, he and his solicitor objected to the Watch Committee hearing the charge. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am not complaining about that, because in the view of the solicitor, the Watch Committee had no jurisdiction. No one is complaining about that; I am not seeking to deny or establish the case. The Watch Committee in the absence of the man, as they were entitled to do by the Regulations, continued to hear and determine the case, and found that the man had been guilty of the charge of being in unlawful possession of petrol.
Whether or not the Watch Committee had the power at this stage was subsequently heard by a tribunal which was set up by the Home Secretary, when the matter had been referred to him. That tribunal consisted of Mr. Anthony Hawke and one of H.M. Inspectors of Constabulary, named Sir Frank Brook. They went fully into the whole of this matter; an opportunity was given to the constable, who was legally represented, and the whole matter was heard de novo. Evidence was called, the whole matter was gone into, and it is not correct to say, as the hon. Member said, that no consideration was given to anything other than the disciplinary issue, because evidence was taken on the whole of the facts, and the tribunal came to the conclusion that the man was guilty of the charge that he was in possession of Service petrol. [Interruption.] That may be true. The Noble Lord has no need to press me on this point, but I must give the House the history of what the Home Office did in the circumstances. Therefore, there was nothing that the Home Secretary of the day could do, when the constable appealed to him, than to do the thing which he did, which was to institute an inquiry to see whether this man had been wrongly dealt with by the Watch Committee and whether the Watch Committee had the power to do that which they purported to do.
The tribunal came to the conclusion, and reported, that they were not prepared to say that the facts alleged came outside


the ambit of the Regulation. The tribunal found that on the facts that had been proved in evidence before them, a breach of discipline had been committed, and that the proper penalty had been imposed. They considered that no miscarriage of Justice had occurred. This was a competent authority, but the matter did not remain there. The ex-police constable made an application to the Divisional Court of the Kings Bench for a writ of certiorari. That too was—

Mr. John Lewis: In view of the fact that this man has not been proved guilty in a court of summary jurisdiction, is my hon. Friend prepared to make a declaration that this man is innocent of the charge levied against him?

Mr. Oliver: That is not a point which I can reply to at this juncture, for the simple reason—

Mr. Paget: Will the Minister allow me—

Mr. Oliver: No, I cannot allow my hon. Friend to interrupt me any further. Regarding the institution of a prosecution, I am not unmindful of the fact of whether Watch Committees should or should not do these things. That is a matter on which I have no doubt the Home Secretary has applied his mind since this case—

It being a Quarter to Ten o'Clock, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.